PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

JasonEvans
04-25-2016, 02:24 PM
The ANOA is out.

Read it here. (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/NOA_Amended_042516_NorthCarolina.pdf)

No mention of men's basketball or football. Roy is cackling with laughter right now. I still doubt that they skate, but the new NOA presents nothing new other than some specific hammering of Women's hoops. There are still 5 Level 1 infractions here, including Lack of Institutional Control.

-Jason "our hopes that much more would go into this have been dashed... but what is still there is still extremely serious" Evans

tux
04-25-2016, 02:30 PM
On first pass this screams that UNC negotiated a delay for the men's basketball team, probably for some additional cooperation. Surely, this effort didn't require 8 months.

It also reads more like a hit piece on Boxil than the previous NOA. In other words, UNC seems to have isolated this to Boxil, Crowder, and Nyang'oro. Although there's still the LOIC...

JasonEvans
04-25-2016, 02:34 PM
So, the ANOA doesn't go 1/10th as far as we would like, but it does contain a phrase that I think does a good job of summing up why Carolina is going to get the hammer:


the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model

That phrase makes multiple appearances and cuts to the core of the allegations.

-Jason "we had our hopes raised in recent weeks that this would be a truly terrifying document -- just because it isn't it does not mean Carolina isn't still in a whole lot of trouble" Evans

BLPOG
04-25-2016, 02:36 PM
Well, I'm firmly back in the UNC Scandal Pessimist camp. It was a fun, if brief, stroll outside.

OldPhiKap
04-25-2016, 02:37 PM
Would love to see a redline version.

Teton Jack
04-25-2016, 02:39 PM
Well, I'm firmly back in the UNC Scandal Pessimist camp. It was a fun, if brief, stroll outside.

This is very disappointing and looks like the NCAA was looking to narrow the inquiry instead of addressing the broader cultural issues

sammy3469
04-25-2016, 02:40 PM
On first pass this screams that UNC negotiated a delay for the men's basketball team, probably for some additional cooperation. Surely, this effort didn't require 8 months.

It also reads more like a hit piece on Boxil than the previous NOA. In other words, UNC seems to have isolated this to Boxil, Crowder, and Nyang'oro. Although there's still the LOIC...

Allegation 4 is a really weird one. It's basically a we know you did this cop-out. Then you go to the NCAA manual's cite of 19.1.1-c and you get a "failure to cooperate" cite. That should have been covered in Allegations 2 and 3, but I guess was not. So it's either the entire ANOA is either gentlest reading of the entire episode, or the NCAA thinks UNC has been so uncooperative the entire time and just wants to hammer the entire program.

Really strange and I'm sure the UNC apologists will be out in full force saying nothing besides WBB are involved even though the NCAA throws the entire university into that 4th allegation.

madscavenger
04-25-2016, 02:44 PM
Lends a little credence to the 'Women's hoops is going to take the brunt of it' we heard last fall (via radio?).

Still, if the men don't lose a banner, every ACC school, and lots of others, ought to every game chant back and forth across the venue in every single televised game they play, Cheaters........Cheaters......Cheaters..........Ch eaters.... And do it for years. Let 'em know it won't be forgotten. Hopefully it will p*ss off not only prospective recruits, but also every baby blue ostrich in the state..........over and over and over and over........ Enjoy the games, folks!

tux
04-25-2016, 02:48 PM
I'm also shaking my head at the "...starting in fall 2005" language.

I'm torn between who I think deserves to get hammered more: UNC or the NCAA.

FerryFor50
04-25-2016, 02:48 PM
Still, if the men don't lose a banner, every ACC school, and lots of others, ought to every game chant back and forth across the venue in every single televised game they play, Cheaters........Cheaters......Cheaters..........Ch eaters.... And do it for years. Let 'em know it won't be forgotten. Hopefully it will p*ss off not only prospective recruits, but also every baby blue ostrich in the state..........over and over and over and over........ Enjoy the games, folks!

Yea, that'll learn 'em! :p

OldPhiKap
04-25-2016, 02:50 PM
FWIW it is dated today, for those thinking that UNC attorneys had it and were sitting on it.

After the big build-up, kinda disappointing. Maybe more than kinda.

I see they self-reported 95 "Level III or secondary" violations in the last four years -- is that a really high number? That is listed as a mitigating factor, but not sure if that is an unusual number or not.

BandAlum83
04-25-2016, 02:53 PM
I'm sad :(
I'm disappointed :(

swood1000
04-25-2016, 02:54 PM
This amended NOA is in addition to the original one.


Please note that the policies and procedures outlined in the May 20, 2015, notice of allegations and corresponding cover letter still apply.

Tom B.
04-25-2016, 02:55 PM
Compare these paragraphs from the original NOA:

From pp. 1-2:


a. Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body. The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses, obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete, turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes and recommending grades.

Certain AFRI/AFAM courses were anomalous because they were designated as lecture courses but were taught as independent study courses with little, if any, attendance requirements, minimal to no faculty interaction, lax paper writing standards and artificially high final grades. In some instances, athletics academic counselors within ASPSA made special arrangements and used these courses to help ensure the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes. The high level of involvement by athletics academic counselors in the administration of these anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses relieved student-athletes of the academic responsibilities of a general student. [NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1 (2002-03 through 2010-11)]

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


From pp. 49-50:


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



With these paragraphs from the new NOA:

From p. 6:


Specifically, the AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that were available to the general student body and went unchecked for at least six years. As a result of the institution's obligation and ability to provide academic support services to student-athletes, and as a result of the relationships between the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and the AFRI/AFAM department, student-athletes had increased exposure to the anomalous course offerings. When individuals brought concerns to the attention of then leaders both on campus and within athletics, those leaders had multiple opportunities to investigate the AFRI/AFAM course anomalies and student-athletes' exposure to those courses. However, the institution failed to exert control when it did not recognize and sufficiently investigate these practices. Both campus and the athletics department administrators' reactions and responses to those opportunities were inadequate and ineffective, creating the conditions and opportunities that made possible the violations described in Allegation Nos. 1 and 4. As a result of the failure of leadership and the lack of corrective action, problems within the AFRI/AFAM department and athletics were allowed to continue for multiple years.

Further, the institutional leadership did not provide adequate guidance and supervision to those employed within ASPSA. Because of this failure in leadership and oversight, those charged with providing academic support for student-athletes did not believe their actions or the actions of the AFRI/AFAM department were inappropriate. The institution's failure to take necessary steps to provide adequate oversight of the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses resulted in an investigation, analysis and ultimately disciplinary action taken against the institution by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, its accrediting agency.


The new NOA appears to have been defanged of anything that could retroactively jeopardize the eligibility of football or men's basketball athletes. The new NOA not only doesn't mention men's basketball or football, it also no longer appears to treat the fake classes as "impermissible benefits," as the original NOA did. Now it's basically just a "failure to monitor/failure to supervise" case, with the exception of women's basketball. And the applicable time frames have been shortened, too.

Whatever UNC has been paying its lawyers, they earned every penny. It's almost as if Wainstein never happened. Looks like the banners are safe.

At least we'll always have Kris Jenkins.

tux
04-25-2016, 02:56 PM
My new guess is: 1) A pretty large fine 2) Multiple years of probation and loss of scholarships for WBB...

PackPride is going to go IC on this... (watch UNC beat them in football this fall too)

Tom B.
04-25-2016, 02:56 PM
This amended NOA is in addition to the original one.

I'm no expert, but I think it's only the "policies and procedures" outlined in the first NOA that carry over. Not the actual allegations.

OldPhiKap
04-25-2016, 02:57 PM
Compare these paragraphs from the original NOA:

From pp. 1-2:




From pp. 49-50:





With these paragraphs from the new NOA:

From p. 6:




The new NOA appears to have been defanged of anything that could retroactively jeopardize the eligibility of football or men's basketball athletes. Whatever UNC has been paying its lawyers, they earned every penny. It's almost as if Wainstein never happened. Looks like the banners are safe.

Yup. Wrist slap coming for all but WBB.

tux
04-25-2016, 02:58 PM
This amended NOA is in addition to the original one.

But that could also just be the "policies and procedures" not the actual allegations. I saw that too -- but why repeat so much stuff in the new one if the original NOA is still operative. My guess is that you're incorrect, and this is the only NOA.

El_Diablo
04-25-2016, 02:59 PM
The men's basketball team will skate. The 2005 banner is safe. The 2009 banner is likely safe. They may be affected by some blanket punishment (e.g., scholarship reductions), but the allegations against the men's basketball team have been completely gutted.

No wonder UNC was so quick to push this out the door.

DukeWarhead
04-25-2016, 03:00 PM
Geez f-ing Louise! Are you kidding me? I was bamboozled by all this "hint hint" insider info pointing to a big tsunami punishment. That stinks!

-jk
04-25-2016, 03:00 PM
I've known it all along - they're gonna skate...

-jk

MChambers
04-25-2016, 03:00 PM
Yup. Wrist slap coming for all but WBB.

Have to say that the NCAA will lose virtually any remaining credibility if it is a wrist slap.

Danke Shane
04-25-2016, 03:04 PM
So... not only did UNC's delay tactics buy them time for an attempt at a National Championship this year, but it bought time for the NOA to be streamlined/de-fanged/parsed into seemingly nothing?

Excuse me, waiter - check please.

Tom B.
04-25-2016, 03:04 PM
Sylvia Hatchell must be frothing mad right now. They bent over backwards to keep men's basketball and football out of the amended NOA, but women's basketball is still hung out to dry. Is it too much to hope that she says "F--- it," and decides to un-bury some bodies?

El_Diablo
04-25-2016, 03:04 PM
Have to say that the NCAA will lose virtually any remaining credibility if it is a wrist slap.

It's going to be painful for the women's basketball program. It's less than a wrist slap for football and men's basketball.

Teton Jack
04-25-2016, 03:05 PM
Have to say that the NCAA will lose virtually any remaining credibility if it is a wrist slap.

This will encourage a lot of coaches to take the chance to cheat. With the Carolina Way receiving NCAA "endorsement" Katie bar the door.

swood1000
04-25-2016, 03:05 PM
But that could also just be the "policies and procedures" not the actual allegations. I saw that too -- but why repeat so much stuff in the new one if the original NOA is still operative. My guess is that you're incorrect, and this is the only NOA.
Maybe so, in which case they dropped the entire allegation 1 and any mention of extra benefits or ineligibility except as to WBB.

sammy3469
04-25-2016, 03:05 PM
Have to say that the NCAA will lose virtually any remaining credibility if it is a wrist slap.

They'll fine them, put them on probation, take some schollies and call it a day. Unbelievable really. I can't believe they get to keep the 2005 banner.

Just shameful.

madscavenger
04-25-2016, 03:08 PM
Swofford, Emmert, ESPN, Piece-o-I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. Rams, Board of Governors, Board of Trustees, and lawyers and media throughout the state are despicable, unethical, holier than thou examples of corruption, casting a shadow of shame and derision, and the stench of a master/serf mentality . In other words, these terms of endearment epitomize what will now be known to all as an everlasting albatross, The CAROLINA WAY.

oldnavy
04-25-2016, 03:10 PM
So with 8 more months the NCAA lightens up on UNC rather than finding more infractions?

Wow, if I were UNC, I'd self report a couple of more WBB issues and hope that the next NOA clears the school completely... why not?

fraggler
04-25-2016, 03:13 PM
Wow. I'm really pissed at myself right now for getting my hopes up. I should know by now.

BandAlum83
04-25-2016, 03:18 PM
I'm a real wanker for saying this.

This thread is officially off my must read list. I'm just going to go about my business. I can't affect the outcome, and I'll just wait to see what the final result is.

madscavenger
04-25-2016, 03:19 PM
What sayeth thou, Jim Boeheim?

duke09hms
04-25-2016, 03:21 PM
So does this officially mean all the PackPride people like Manalishi/RCCPMD/BlueDevilious are FOS? They really staked their reps on a 6th Level 1 and a Level 2.
...
All I can say is:
THANK YOU VILLANOVA!!!

BigWayne
04-25-2016, 03:21 PM
The watering down of allegation #5 is sickening.

devildeac
04-25-2016, 03:21 PM
What sayeth thou, Jim Boeheim?

"I'll have our lawyers call you in the AM."

??

slower
04-25-2016, 03:21 PM
Forget it, Jake; It's Tarheeltown.

Thank God for Kris Jenkins or they would have hit a grand slam.

The best we can hope for now is that former presumed Tarheel-to-be Harry Giles will bring us home another banner. THAT will sting them a bit.

sammy3469
04-25-2016, 03:22 PM
So with 8 more months the NCAA lightens up on UNC rather than finding more infractions?

Wow, if I were UNC, I'd self report a couple of more WBB issues and hope that the next NOA clears the school completely... why not?

FWIW, I don't know about lightens up on the time period they are going to get hit on. They (probably including the coaches) are going to get hammered for the 2005-6 to 2010-11 time period. My guess is Roy et al get show cause orders against them (it wasn't clear how the NCAA was going to get there cleanly in the original NOA) and the other institutional penalties may be tougher.

What I don't understand is how or why they shortened the time period of the LOIC allegation from the 2002-3 start to conveniently 2005-6.

Nugget
04-25-2016, 03:25 PM
I'm no expert, but I think it's only the "policies and procedures" outlined in the first NOA that carry over. Not the actual allegations.

At least in the normal legal system that would be the effect of the document's title being "Amended Notice of Allegations," rather than referring to it as "supplemental" allegations.

In which case this truly is an absurd whitewash. How can the delay caused by UNC reporting new (additional) violations result in what looks on first reading to be a wholesale ditching by the NCAA of key aspects of the violations on which they had UNC dead to rights? The only logical answer is a backroom deal to throw WBB under the bus and limit the time period of violations in such a way as to preserve the men's basketball titles.

Really does look like a charade, particularly since it says nothing at all about the Independent Study hours violations/misrepresentation of evidence by UNC and carefully avoids violations before "Fall 2005," so as to not have to confront the massive academic fraud committed on behalf of the 2004-2005 basketball team.

Olympic Fan
04-25-2016, 03:26 PM
I have to admit, the new NOA is a stunner ...

I have been one of the strongest advocates of the "trust the NCAA to do the right thing" in the long run ... I apologize and admit that I was wrong. Absolutely wrong. My sources were wrong. I was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I can't believe it, but the skeptics and pessimists seem to be right. The NCAA is going to ignore mountains of evidence and let them skate.

Wow .. just wow.

I'm sure they are celebrating in Chapel Hill right now -- they ought to take to the streets and have the celebration they didn't have after the national title game.

Not sure they are 100 percent sure to skate (in men's basketball), but the odds are looking better ... and the chances of the hammer falling are slim.

I'm a wanker for saying this ... I'm a wanker for saying this ... I'm a wanker for saying this

No -- that's not the board's obscenity filter ... that's me whacking myself in reaction to the news.

Eternal Outlaw
04-25-2016, 03:27 PM
So does this officially mean all the PackPride people like Manalishi/RCCPMD/BlueDevilious are FOS? They really staked their reps on a 6th Level 1 and a Level 2.
...
All I can say is:
THANK YOU VILLANOVA!!!

RCCPMD was the one who brought fourth the 6th level 1 and they outed them self today as a troll and UNC fan.

Not sure what to say about other two, don't think they are trolls but looks to have been given bad info or didn't have good sources.

BLPOG
04-25-2016, 03:27 PM
So does this officially mean all the PackPride people like Manalishi/RCCPMD/BlueDevilious are FOS? They really staked their reps on a 6th Level 1 and a Level 2.
...
All I can say is:
THANK YOU VILLANOVA!!!

BlueDevilicious is not a PackPride guy. He revealed his identity weeks ago and has never claimed insider information. He has just done analysis of the document releases and tried to publicize that information.

swood1000
04-25-2016, 03:30 PM
Looks like the bottom line as to the non-WBB extra benefits is that they're saying that those benefits went to athletes and non-athletes, so they can't charge extra benefit to athletes.

tux
04-25-2016, 03:30 PM
I guess it all makes sense. What University wouldn't move heaven and earth for a really good WBB program?

CameronBlue
04-25-2016, 03:33 PM
RCCPMD was the one who brought fourth the 6th level 1 and they outed them self today as an inveterate liar full of self-hate.

Not sure what to say about other two, don't think they are trolls but looks to have been given bad info or didn't have good sources.

FIFY

tux
04-25-2016, 03:34 PM
Looks like the bottom line as to the non-WBB extra benefits is that they're saying that those benefits went to athletes and non-athletes, so they can't charge extra benefit to athletes.

So, it worked. As long as the classes are open to the general student population, it pretty much can't be classified as an impermissible benefit, even if the classes were originally created to keep athletes eligible and a disportionate number of athletes were enrolled and fed into the system by the academic support system.

That's good to know. Thanks NCAA!

Skitzle
04-25-2016, 03:34 PM
FIFY

Wow, just wow. Theyre really going to skate....

OldPhiKap
04-25-2016, 03:36 PM
To be fair, I bet the NCAA gives Carol Folt a stern talking-to.

What a joke.

Now, UNC self-imposes a post-season ban for a year, two years on women's hoops; drops a few schollies for two seasons; and a fine. That's it. NCAA accepts, case closed.

Tom B.
04-25-2016, 03:37 PM
I'm sure they are celebrating in Chapel Hill right now...



Yep, here's a live feed from inside the Dean Dome:


http://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/roy-williams-dancing.gif?w=1000

swood1000
04-25-2016, 03:42 PM
http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by swood1000 http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=882844#post882844)
Looks like the bottom line as to the non-WBB extra benefits is that they're saying that those benefits went to athletes and non-athletes, so they can't charge extra benefit to athletes.

So, it worked. As long as the classes are open to the general student population, it pretty much can't be classified as an impermissible benefit, even if the classes were originally created to keep athletes eligible and a disportionate number of athletes were enrolled and fed into the system by the academic support system.

That's good to know. Thanks NCAA!
So now we know that over the last eight months UNC was busy convincing the enforcement staff that since the corruption was pervasive throughout the entire university, and not limited to student-athletes, it was none of their business.

duke09hms
04-25-2016, 03:42 PM
FWIW, I don't know about lightens up on the time period they are going to get hit on. They (probably including the coaches) are going to get hammered for the 2005-6 to 2010-11 time period. My guess is Roy et al get show cause orders against them (it wasn't clear how the NCAA was going to get there cleanly in the original NOA) and the other institutional penalties may be tougher.

What I don't understand is how or why they shortened the time period of the LOIC allegation from the 2002-3 start to conveniently 2005-6.

The same reason the Syracuse allegations conveniently started in the Fall of 2003. Spineless.

badgerbd
04-25-2016, 03:42 PM
So, it worked. As long as the classes are open to the general student population, it pretty much can't be classified as an impermissible benefit, even if the classes were originally created to keep athletes eligible and a disportionate number of athletes were enrolled and fed into the system by the academic support system.

That's good to know. Thanks NCAA!

This reaction is why when this was released a couple weeks ago I took it as a bad sign: http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-council-adopts-academic-integrity-proposal?sf23996574=1

Basically, under the old guidelines they couldn't classify it as an impermissible benefit, but going forward they can (maybe..).

Duke79UNLV77
04-25-2016, 03:46 PM
We competed with UNC and won more of our share for decades while they were cheating, so we can still do that. My enjoyment of the rivalry already has gone down some knowing how corrupt UNC has been. I worry that for the NCAA to let UNC skate will also detract from my enjoyment of Duke basketball, since, while I love the program, its leadership, and the sport, I don't know if I'll be able completely to separate it from the rotting stench of the NCAA in which the program must operate. Sort of how I didn't like baseball quite as much during the height of the steroid era.

flyingdutchdevil
04-25-2016, 03:46 PM
I have to admit, the new NOA is a stunner ...

I have been one of the strongest advocates of the "trust the NCAA to do the right thing" in the long run ... I apologize and admit that I was wrong. Absolutely wrong. My sources were wrong. I was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I can't believe it, but the skeptics and pessimists seem to be right. The NCAA is going to ignore mountains of evidence and let them skate.

Wow .. just wow.

I'm sure they are celebrating in Chapel Hill right now -- they ought to take to the streets and have the celebration they didn't have after the national title game.

Not sure they are 100 percent sure to skate (in men's basketball), but the odds are looking better ... and the chances of the hammer falling are slim.

I'm a wanker for saying this ... I'm a wanker for saying this ... I'm a wanker for saying this

No -- that's not the board's obscenity filter ... that's me whacking myself in reaction to the news.

I've been on the side that the NCAA will never do the right thing. I'm not surprised that Kerlina will get off easy. It's the NCAA. They are inconsistent. They are incompetent. They are spineless.

The NCAA will either over-punish, under-punish, or do something completely idiotic. Asking them to do the right thing is a joke.

NashvilleDevil
04-25-2016, 03:50 PM
Looks like we learned that Nixon should have used whoever UNC used.

SlapTheFloor
04-25-2016, 03:54 PM
The NCAA decided to make a statement with this case. And that statement is that no one is more corrupt than it is.

Law Prof
04-25-2016, 03:56 PM
to EVER vacate the winner, no matter how badly they cheated or who they are. It's one thing to vacate a Final Four or runner-up; hardly anyone ever notices. It'd be something else entirely to tell the whole country who fixated on March Madness for a month that the whole thing was for naught: the winner is no longer the winner and, indeed, neither is the runner-up. There is no champion for that year!

I guess I've become a cynic in my old age, but I just can't see the NCAA choosing integrity over TV ratings and money. And I can't see the member institutions doing so either. They want that TV cash!

Am I wrong?

sammy3469
04-25-2016, 04:10 PM
So now we know that over the last eight months UNC was busy convincing the enforcement staff that since the corruption was pervasive throughout the entire university, and not limited to student-athletes, it was none of their business.

Which seems runs contrary to the NCAA's AMA, LRIC, and Legislative Council interpretation in the 'Cuse case.

I mean, at the end of the day 'Cuse's MBB is probably going to get hit harder than UNC MBB will which is just mindblowing to me ('Cuse got hit for a 5 year probation since they violations occurred over 10 years...we are only looking at 6 years for UNC now...hello 3 years of probation).

J.Blink
04-25-2016, 04:12 PM
RCCPMD was the one who brought fourth the 6th level 1 and they outed them self today as a troll and UNC fan.

Not sure what to say about other two, don't think they are trolls but looks to have been given bad info or didn't have good sources.

As upset as I am by the NCAA's complete fecklessness and the total corruption of college athletics, @RCCPMD may just go down as one of the greatest trolls and sh*t posters in history. I believed it hook, line, and sinker.

At least the last week was fun.

BD80
04-25-2016, 04:13 PM
... -Jason "we had our hopes raised in recent weeks that this would be a truly terrifying document -- just because it isn't it does not mean Carolina isn't still in a whole lot of trouble" Evans

I was bamboozled.

To quote Sheldon from Big Bang Theory: "What's real? What isn't? How can I know?"

PackMan97
04-25-2016, 04:33 PM
I'm ready to jump out a window...which is gonna look really silly since I have a one story house. But I guess making State fans look silly is the thing for the day.

Anyone that wants fairness and honor in sports just lost.

rifraf
04-25-2016, 04:36 PM
Wish I could say I was surprised, but I said they were going to skate over a year ago and it looks like that's what is going to happen.

I am surprised they removed stuff from the original NOA though; there's no logic there at all. How can you say with a straight face that after further review, we found less things?

blueduke59
04-25-2016, 04:36 PM
Manalishi was FOS all along. All the PP people who who lived and died with his posts must be frothing about now. NCAA may as well close their doors too. What and spineless and toothless bunch weasels

madscavenger
04-25-2016, 04:36 PM
Now you are all swinging in the other direction. We have no knowledge of factors like undisclosed interviews or what specific analysis was done (both before and after the NOA). Lets wait to see what Dan Kane has to say. There has been, subsequent to the numerous Kane articles and disclosures, other nationally known writing on the subject. Have none of them any credence at all? Has Dan Kane been buffaloed too? There is just too much verifiable information out there, in the Wainstein Report footnotes, and elsewhere. Did not Provosts, Professors, and on and on get substantial good-bye packages? Were multiple obfuscation, delay, and John Belushi 'lets throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks' tactics not even beyond the grasp of a Tyler Hansbrough level of insight? i am going to, despite my naturally ingrained, extremely skeptical character, await more detail before wringing my hands. It doesn't smell right. The NCAA cannot, especially now, be unaware of the magnitude of the consequences of minor penalties. You may as well say hey, Nixon made a few indisgressions, but no biggie.

Also, someone please inform us as to, even if charges remain at the reduced level now being assumed, whether the COI has sufficient authority to impose major penalties.



As far as announcing something right now, the UNC student body is wrapping up their "school" year and will be gone for the summer without any who were concerned giving this a second thought.


Edit: Hey, someone snuck Nixon in while I was typing -- must be somehow relevant.

duke4ever19
04-25-2016, 04:39 PM
So, just for the sake of clarity, we can safely conclude that there will be NO punishment of any kind for unc men's hoops?

I know the punishments haven't been made known, but unc hoops will have managed to avoid any punishment for misdeeds?

Tom B.
04-25-2016, 04:59 PM
As upset as I am by the NCAA's complete fecklessness and the total corruption of college athletics, @RCCPMD may just go down as one of the greatest trolls and sh*t posters in history. I believed it hook, line, and sinker.


Here's the thing about RCCPMD -- I don't think he was just some garden-variety Carolina fan trolling the rivals for kicks. Think about it -- obviously, everything he said about the amended NOA was fiction. But even if he was making stuff up, the amended NOA still could've been bad for Carolina. And that would've left RCCPMD with lots of egg on his face. He self-outs himself as a troll, and then Carolina gets hammered anyway? Tool.

No, I think this person (or people) had inside information. He had to know in advance what was in the amended NOA, or at least had to know generally that it would be softer than the original NOA. That way, he could troll safely, and time his self-outing for maximum schadenfreuderific effect. Without some kind of inside info about the amended NOA, his scam doesn't work.

Of course, we'll likely never know who it really was. But this does narrow the universe of potential candidates somewhat.

sagegrouse
04-25-2016, 05:00 PM
So, just for the sake of clarity, we can safely conclude that there will be NO punishment of any kind for unc men's hoops?

I know the punishments haven't been made known, but unc hoops will have managed to avoid any punishment for misdeeds?

The institutional corruption charges are very strong. Failure to oversee ASPSA and AFRI/AFAM and Jan Boxill for six years (fall semester 2005 through summer semester 2011) is a really big deal. However, it really doesn't call out men's basketball. Therefore, the penalties are likely to be broad-brush (post-season bans for all sports and big fines) rather than specifically affecting men's basketball. Therefore, I don't see how eligibility and banners are affected at all (although I haven't read it closely). I suppose basketball and football could get a post-season ban of a year or two.

Women's basketball and Sylvia Hatchell are just plain toast, I suspect. And, really, who cares? All the good players have left, haven't they?

Boxill was fired (she was non-tenure but still had a high faculty position). I mean, who cares? I remember on Day One of the initial NOA, I went to the website for the Parr Center for Sports Ethics, which she led, and her picture and name were already gone.

devildeac
04-25-2016, 05:03 PM
I posted this somewhere in a recent thread. Worth repeating.

chochote thamani ya kuwa ni yenye thamani ya udanganyifu kwa







Translation:

Anything worth having is worth cheating for.


Needs to be unc's new motto.

And perhaps any other ncaa-affiliated institution.

Color me disgusted. Thoroughly.

~23 years of fake/paper courses, admission to SACS of academic fraud, 2 ncaa investigations since ~2010, an 8 month delay for the ANOA and this is POS that they come up with?

Bostondevil
04-25-2016, 05:08 PM
I still feel most sorry for the non-athlete students who majored in AFAM at UNC during this time period. I imagine many of them still have student loan debt. I cannot understand why they haven't filed a class action lawsuit. Their degrees are jokes, no matter how hard they worked for them, they should get their tuition refunded.

As for other punishments, the high school my kids go to has a volunteer mentoring program designed to help students and families who are unfamiliar with the college application process learn their way around. I know several of the mentors. I have made sure they know that UNC is on academic probation. The guidance counselors know about UNC's issues as well. Word is spreading - I got a phone call from an acquaintance whose daughter was accepted to UNC for next year. I told her no lies, just a barebones run down of the scandal. The daughter has decided to attend UVA. At this point in time, I cannot fathom spending out-of-state tuition money for UNC. There are many better options for the money.

I'm not sure I care about athletic teams getting punishments. Much as I've hated TarHeel sports through the years, I've long been proud that the public university in my home state (Durham native) had a great national reputation. Now, I'm ashamed. The real tragedy is the loss of respect for their academics, all of them. So yes, I am rather shocked that the faculty has not risen up against these practices or at the very least distanced themselves from them. The lack of institutional control has brought down a proud university. So - my feeling is their punishment should not involve taking down banners - it should involve the loss of the high quality students that have been the backbone of their academic reputation. If they want to be an athletic facility that teaches a few classes, so be it. The do not deserve the best students anymore.

Pghdukie
04-25-2016, 05:11 PM
Another episode of unc declaring more self-investigation, another paper dump, then 6 more months delay will result in NCAA giving unc an open apology and $100 million as restitution for the embarrassing situation. We are so sorry unc !
WHAT A JOKE NCAA AS TURNED INTO

El_Diablo
04-25-2016, 05:14 PM
So, just for the sake of clarity, we can safely conclude that there will be NO punishment of any kind for unc men's hoops?

I know the punishments haven't been made known, but unc hoops will have managed to avoid any punishment for misdeeds?

I believe there could be multi-sport punishments that could affect the men's basketball team (e.g., a blanket 1- or 2-year postseason ban, scholarship reductions) due to the failure to monitor and loss of institutional control. I assume someone will go through the bylaws and figure out what is possible on that front.

But vacated wins/banners look like they are off the table for the men's basketball team.

JasonEvans
04-25-2016, 05:18 PM
Here's the thing about RCCPMD -- I don't think he was just some garden-variety Carolina fan trolling the rivals for kicks. Think about it -- obviously, everything he said about the amended NOA was fiction. But even if he was making stuff up, the amended NOA still could've been bad for Carolina. And that would've left RCCPMD with lots of egg on his face. He self-outs himself as a troll, and then Carolina gets hammered anyway? Tool.

No, I think this person (or people) had inside information. He had to know in advance what was in the amended NOA, or at least had to know generally that it would be softer than the original NOA. That way, he could troll safely, and time his self-outing for maximum schadenfreuderific effect. Without some kind of inside info about the amended NOA, his scam doesn't work.

Of course, we'll likely never know who it really was. But this does narrow the universe of potential candidates somewhat.

Worth noting that shortly after revealing himself as a troll, but several hours before the ANOA was released, RCCPMD said he was looking forward to all the State fans having to read a NOA that "looked like it was written by Swofford." Well, that is pretty much what we got here. So, I 100% agree with Tom that RCCPMD was someone who was connected to the process and knew what was coming.

Do we also now think that Manalishi is a fraud?

-Jason "tragic, though I think we will look back on this in a few yeas as one of the foolish moves that destroyed the NCAA -- this opens to door to rampant cheating which will forever elminate the notion of the student-athlete" Evans

arnie
04-25-2016, 05:30 PM
Totally predictable and has Swofford fingerprints all over it. I'm hoping several schools use this opportunity to divorce themselves from the ACC and UnC. Wouldn't bother me if it started with Duke in a very public announcement regarding academic integrity.

Neals384
04-25-2016, 05:53 PM
So now we know the real reason UNC self-reported additional violations last fall - it wasn't to create a delay for the 2016 MBB team; it was the only way the NCAA could back off of the original allegations without advancing them to the COI.

Danke Shane
04-25-2016, 06:01 PM
a NOA that "looked like it was written by Swofford." Well, that is pretty much what we got here. So, I 100% agree with Tom that RCCPMD was someone who was connected to the process and knew what was coming.


It also perhaps explains how Roy's been able to say over and over and over again that MBB wasn't going to be affected, as if he's been reassured behind the scenes that they were going to dodge it.

Atlanta Duke
04-25-2016, 06:02 PM
Decline is not a smooth downward slope but a series of uneven descending stair steps

If the amended NOA turns out to result in the two UNC men's revenue sports getting off with pretty much a stern warning not to do this again but not much else it will be a major step down to college sports giving up any pretext of being nothing but pro sports where, unlike the major leagues, virtually all the revenue goes to the coaches and athletic departments while the players are enrolled in school but not expected to legitimately pass real classes

At least the charade being exposed will accelerate the demise of the NCAA

NashvilleDevil
04-25-2016, 06:20 PM
Worth noting that shortly after revealing himself as a troll, but several hours before the ANOA was released, RCCPMD said he was looking forward to all the State fans having to read a NOA that "looked like it was written by Swofford." Well, that is pretty much what we got here. So, I 100% agree with Tom that RCCPMD was someone who was connected to the process and knew what was coming.

Do we also now think that Manalishi is a fraud?

-Jason "tragic, though I think we will look back on this in a few yeas as one of the foolish moves that destroyed the NCAA -- this opens to door to rampant cheating which will forever elminate the notion of the student-athlete" Evans

I've been lurking on Pack Pride today and I believe Manalishi has been a poster since the late 90s.

wsb3
04-25-2016, 06:32 PM
No, I think this person (or people) had inside information.

That thought surely crossed my mind as well. I also thought about a conversation a few months back with a fellow Duke fan who is friends with a big UNC booster & the booster was adamant they were not going to get punished.

OZ
04-25-2016, 06:34 PM
-Jason "tragic, though I think we will look back on this in a few yeas as one of the foolish moves that destroyed the NCAA -- this opens to door to rampant cheating which will forever elminate the notion of the student-athlete" Evans

It seems one could conclude, that the position of the NCAA is... as long as cheating is available to all students, it is out of their jurisdiction and therefore acceptable.

SilkyJ
04-25-2016, 06:55 PM
I've known it all along - they're gonna skate...

-jk


I apologize and admit that I was wrong. Absolutely wrong. My sources were wrong. I was wrong, wrong, wrong.

I can't believe it, but the skeptics and pessimists seem to be right. The NCAA is going to ignore mountains of evidence and let them skate.

Plenty of room on my bus ladies and gentlemen. Plenty of room.

I also note, OF, that you are noble enough to come out and eat crow immediately. Hence the level of respect you have earned. There are others on this board (Duke95 comes to mind) who have been very aggressive and patronizing in their arguments and are seemingly nowhere to be found.

The NCAA is spineless guys. There was nothing that happened in the last 8 months that the NCAA didn't know 1-2 years ago. The cheating happened decades ago. If they were going to punish them they could have done it a long time ago. They will do anything to avoid having to penalize these guys...too big too fail and all that.

And for the 100th time, these guys took a year to do...basically nothing? At best they are incompetent and at worst they were complicit in the NOA delay to allow the UNC BB team to make its title run!

They still haven't levied punishments yet so we'll see, but taking a year to do nothing does not bode well.



Do we also now think that Manalishi is a fraud?

I've questioned him from the beginning. Can't read stuff from randoms on the internet, unless they have proven that their info is credible. Where are his bonafides?

Duke79UNLV77
04-25-2016, 06:57 PM
-Jason "tragic, though I think we will look back on this in a few yeas as one of the foolish moves that destroyed the NCAA -- this opens to door to rampant cheating which will forever elminate the notion of the student-athlete" Evans

Maybe, the NCAA thinks the ruling will save it in lawsuits. If it just relies on the schools to make sure athletes get an education, then just sue the schools, not the NCAA. Still, reprehensible. I've thought Bilas can go a little overboard on his anti-NCAA diatribe, but I say dissolve it at this point. Hey, wait a second. Does Bilas hate the NCAA more than he loves Ole Roy? Maybe, he'll finally see the light?

I guess the secret audiotapes of Willingham are our last Jedi hope.

Neals384
04-25-2016, 06:59 PM
I've been lurking on Pack Pride today and I believe Manalishi has been a poster since the late 90s.

Having a mole inside for that long would impress even the KGB!

Neals384
04-25-2016, 07:02 PM
Totally predictable and has Swofford fingerprints all over it. I'm hoping several schools use this opportunity to divorce themselves from the ACC and UnC. Wouldn't bother me if it started with Duke in a very public announcement regarding academic integrity.

Do you suppose the Terps would vote to let us into the B1G?:cool:

Neals384
04-25-2016, 07:08 PM
I also note, OF, that you are noble enough to come out and eat crow immediately. Hence the level of respect you have earned. There are others on this board (Duke95 comes to mind) who have been very aggressive and patronizing in their arguments and are seemingly nowhere to be found.


This is not the time to crow or eat crow, Silky. Time to come together and hug one another, or at least hug your family. Rest assured that life goes on and we are still fans of the greatest academic sports program in the world.

moonpie23
04-25-2016, 07:21 PM
so, are we absolutely sure that the previous NOA is.....ummm.."gone"......or could this ANOA be just the update with the previous stil in place?

Pghdukie
04-25-2016, 07:21 PM
The Carolina Way = It's only cheating if you get caught ! But don't worry, we'll beat the charges !

crdaul
04-25-2016, 07:31 PM
The Carolina way - we may have broken some rules, but we didn't cheat, dad gummit!

jgehtland
04-25-2016, 07:36 PM
so, are we absolutely sure that the previous NOA is....ummm.."gone"...or could this ANOA be just the update with the previous stil in place?

According to this, the ANOA replaces the original.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/15356594/north-carolina-tar-heels-latest-ncaa-news-tough-make-sense-of

I'm just mystified.

pamtar
04-25-2016, 07:47 PM
Do we also now think that Manalishi is a fraud?

I could be mistaken but wasn't he the guy who dug up the Julius Peppers transcript? Either way, he's been posting on PP since the beginning. I also remember him taking a hiatus due to his identity being hacked. Apparently he was receiving threats? If he is a fraud, which I doubt, he's the greatest troll in the history of the internets.

richardjackson199
04-25-2016, 07:49 PM
Who got punked? Who just underachieved with a super team, cruised through a cakewalk tourney avoiding all top seeds, thought you just saw a miracle shot for the ages, and then watched your national championship hopes flushed down the drain with the ultimate last second heartbreak...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7FFJUz0tdo

So close, yet so far away. Oh what could have been? Forever enjoy your nightmares of Big Smooth.

And speaking of Onions!, we're still reminiscing this...

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

Everybody knows the NCAA is a joke, so who cares. The Carolina Way is dead. Carolina couldn't take seeing their ACC supremacy taken by Duke and K in the late 80's, so they started cheating. But it didn't work. K has won 5 championships since then. Duke MBB has passed UNC. We're bringing in one of the top recruiting classes in the country year after year. Our team next year is preseason #1, so I'm more than happy to save the popcorn to sit back and enjoy what we have at Duke (and never had to cheat to get).

Thank you NCAA and Holes for saving me time of never coming back to this thread. We have K and you have Roy. Looking forward to some more unforgettable Duke memories...

cspan37421
04-25-2016, 07:54 PM
welcome to "too big to fail", NCAA edition.

they might as well pack up the enforcement arm, really. Think about what happened to Memphis with a fake ACT / SAT score, or whatever it was. and on and on.

I suppose one might hold out hope for SACS, but from what I could tell there was even less hope pinned on them having a backbone than on the NCAA.

I'm sure the Tarheels down 15-501 are feeling smug as a bug in a rug, shameless (but not blameless) in their contentment.

May Mary Willingham release the hounds! No point in holding back now!

sagegrouse
04-25-2016, 08:13 PM
Delete this post! This is ridiculous political palaver.

jipops
04-25-2016, 08:28 PM
Well it's official. College sports is a total joke. The hammer will come down if you simply feed a hungry athlete, but feel free to exploit for your own advantage by denying any sort of real education. The message is clear. Don't even bother to have these kids assimilate in any sort of academic environment. Their whole purpose is for tv money. Use them and be done with them. Just make sure you say "student-athlete" in the big pressers to give that aura of nobility.

So we're really supposed to believe that "u"nc put a fake class system in place only for the women's team to take advantage of. Calling all eskimos, I have ice cream for sale.

Wander
04-25-2016, 08:51 PM
I've thought Bilas can go a little overboard on his anti-NCAA diatribe, but I say dissolve it at this point. Hey, wait a second. Does Bilas hate the NCAA more than he loves Ole Roy? Maybe, he'll finally see the light?


You misunderstand Bilas' obsession. Yes, he hates the NCAA, but it is in the context of eliminating the amateurism model, getting athletes paid, and trying to be hip with rap lyrics on twitter or whatever. Bilas will find a way to blame spilling coffee on himself on the NCAA forbidding college athletes from getting endorsement deals, but this stuff about classes and cheating doesn't really fit into his narrative.

DukeWarhead
04-25-2016, 09:40 PM
So, Duke Lacrosse gets a season cancelled based on accusations and conjecture with no evidence. Penn State gets hammered for permitting "a culture" to take over, but no specific NCAA violations. While UNC has provable academic fraud over decades and the NCAA is going to shrug and look the other way. Wow. Stupefying.
Here's hoping some investigative journalist(s) can do what the NCAA seems not willing to do. Hold UNC accountable, expose the details of what they have done for all to see. Maybe UNC keeps playing basketball unscathed (which seems absolutely crazy to write) but maybe every body and their brother can fully see what a piece of crap Dean, Roy and the dudes in between were fostering.
Shine a big, fat light on all of it. Somebody has to do it.
The NCAA has no spine whatsoever, it would appear.

tteettimes
04-25-2016, 09:54 PM
Guess this means " Everybody does it"..........

OldPhiKap
04-25-2016, 09:59 PM
We need Duke95 to come tell us why our pessimism tonight is misplaced. Otherwise, I am done with this issue.

Wake me when UNC walks. Absolutely disgusting. McCants admits he cheated, he goes from failing to Dean's List through fraud -- and they keep the banner.

Almost worth getting banned to really express my disgust right now.

Congrats to Carolina, big win.

pokeresq
04-25-2016, 10:07 PM
The response of UNC is that this is not an athletic scandal, but an academic one. Okay, let us accept that and demand that the Dept of Education and Dept of Justice pursue an investigation of UNC just as they do other schools which offer worthless degrees with classes which require little or no work. If various for profit colleges have been forced to close because the degrees they offer are worthless, why not UNC-CH? Ridiculous, you say? The defense they have offered is "This was not cheating to help us keep unqualified athletes eligible. Every student had the opportunity to take a fake class!" If fake classes are part of their academic culture and NOT simply a way to cheat to gain an athletic advantage, then they need to accept the consequences of being a fake university.

They sold their birthright of being a great academic university to be able to keep flying banners they cheated to win. That was the choice they made, so now they need to reap the consequences of that choice. The goal of NCAA staff is to keep their jobs, so it is no surprise they show no commitment to principle when doing so might endanger the NCAA and their jobs. That the Faculty and Administrators at UNC are so willing to abandon all pretense of caring about academic integrity and the reputation so many generations fought to earn is both more surprising and much, much sadder.

moonpie23
04-25-2016, 10:24 PM
too big...too many lawyers, too much money, head of espn and alum....

sickening.....

yeah, big congrats to the holes......they won...

MCFinARL
04-25-2016, 10:28 PM
So, Duke Lacrosse gets a season cancelled based on accusations and conjecture with no evidence. Penn State gets hammered for permitting "a culture" to take over, but no specific NCAA violations. While UNC has provable academic fraud over decades and the NCAA is going to shrug and look the other way. Wow. Stupefying.
Here's hoping some investigative journalist(s) can do what the NCAA seems not willing to do. Hold UNC accountable, expose the details of what they have done for all to see. Maybe UNC keeps playing basketball unscathed (which seems absolutely crazy to write) but maybe every body and their brother can fully see what a piece of crap Dean, Roy and the dudes in between were fostering.
Shine a big, fat light on all of it. Somebody has to do it.
The NCAA has no spine whatsoever, it would appear.

Well, Duke Lacrosse is not an apt example because there was no NCAA action--that was a university decision. Penn State is a better comparison because the NCAA did take action there, although it later backed off of some of what it imposed.

Jarhead
04-25-2016, 10:28 PM
My only hope is that the hammer has been passed to the SACS.

duke96
04-25-2016, 11:08 PM
Man, Duke95 seems to be wrong a lot. Please don't confuse us!

MarkD83
04-26-2016, 12:09 AM
Having been pulled into this drama and having attempted to understand the possible ramifications while digesting the rumors, I like most of the folks here are a little awestruck by the ANOA.

Having had time to soak on it for awhile I am now rather amused by the situation. The head of the faculty at UNC is still being accused of cheating and an academic department is being called out as offering fraudulent classes. This leads to an accusation that the university as a whole looked the other way and had no control over the situation. In the interim UNC paid tens of millions of dollars to control the damage.

This is now being called a "victory" by some in the UNC arena and we on this board are disappointed based on higher expectations.

Perhaps with time to dwell on the situation that last sentence is the most puzzling aspect of this whole sordid mess.

My solace (if I need one) is that no amount of negotiating can restore a lost reputation and lost respect.

gumbomoop
04-26-2016, 01:09 AM
The game must be replayed.

It only makes sense. Now, when you think about it.

Coach: "It's hard penalize us for losing, when there's been no allegation that we were meant to lose."

B. Straighter: "I believe Coach. He's honorable, and plays by the rules. This is a matter of fairness. It's a chance for the NCAA to finally do something right for student athletes."

M.N.Irt: "This is a very complicated situation, unique, really. We've never before had to deal with the sorts of issues that arose from the Original NC of April 4, 2016. After gathering all the facts, and after due deliberation despite pressing time constraints, the NCAA Committee on Emendations has ruled that the Amended NC will take place in Charlotte, NC, within 3 days of the elimination of the Charlotte Hornets from the NBA playoffs. An announcement concerning ticket allocations will be forthcoming. Rest assured that we will do our very best to be fair."

Skitzle
04-26-2016, 02:37 AM
Having been pulled into this drama and having attempted to understand the possible ramifications while digesting the rumors, I like most of the folks here are a little awestruck by the ANOA.

Having had time to soak on it for awhile I am now rather amused by the situation. The head of the faculty at UNC is still being accused of cheating and an academic department is being called out as offering fraudulent classes. This leads to an accusation that the university as a whole looked the other way and had no control over the situation. In the interim UNC paid tens of millions of dollars to control the damage.

This is now being called a "victory" by some in the UNC arena and we on this board are disappointed based on higher expectations.

Perhaps with time to dwell on the situation that last sentence is the most puzzling aspect of this whole sordid mess.

My solace (if I need one) is that no amount of negotiating can restore a lost reputation and lost respect.

I am one who clearly got caught up in rumors. I'm eating large large crow, but this move by the NCAA...

Other's have said it will decrease their enjoyment of college basketball. I can definitely say that it will effect mine. What a sham... I'm done with NCAA.

Ian
04-26-2016, 02:38 AM
I have to say, this has put a serious damper on my already waning interest in college athletics.

If this is how the NCAA wants to operate they need to just go away period. I have no interest in anything with their logo on it. I'm pretty much ready to wash my hands of the whole thing,

Sadly it will also mean me saying goodbye to Duke basketball. But sometimes in life one has to draw a line. The silver lining for me is that I was probably going to leave the scene anyway upon Coach K's retirement (hence the waning part), my only reason to stay was due to my enormous respect for him and the program he built, the rest of college athletics scene I was merely tolerating for the sake of supporting K. So this only accelerated my time table by a few years.

slower
04-26-2016, 05:19 AM
We'll always have Kris Jenkins. :p

quahog174
04-26-2016, 05:22 AM
Someone needs to look into Mark Emmert's Seychelles account to see if Swofford's wire cleared yet.

dukelifer
04-26-2016, 05:57 AM
Having been pulled into this drama and having attempted to understand the possible ramifications while digesting the rumors, I like most of the folks here are a little awestruck by the ANOA.

Having had time to soak on it for awhile I am now rather amused by the situation. The head of the faculty at UNC is still being accused of cheating and an academic department is being called out as offering fraudulent classes. This leads to an accusation that the university as a whole looked the other way and had no control over the situation. In the interim UNC paid tens of millions of dollars to control the damage.

This is now being called a "victory" by some in the UNC arena and we on this board are disappointed based on higher expectations.

Perhaps with time to dwell on the situation that last sentence is the most puzzling aspect of this whole sordid mess.

My solace (if I need one) is that no amount of negotiating can restore a lost reputation and lost respect.
I am in this camp. Sports are primarily part of Universities because they contribute to their branding. The scandal has exposed how the academic component of the University can operate to maintain arbitrarily defined student-athlete eligibility. Most every University has their courses or courses to do this. This one was just over the top absurd- with no lectures and no professors. Sports are so critical to University branding that all involved will find ways to keep it going - even when some athletes are illiterate or incapable of doing college work. The NCAA and Universities are in symbiosis. This scandal goes at the heart of what is also wrong with the NCAA- a system that values TV dollars over what is best for the athlete.

BlueTeuf
04-26-2016, 06:10 AM
Maybe we should start a petition....

devildeac
04-26-2016, 06:35 AM
My only hope is that the hammer has been passed to the SACS.

Yea, riiiiight.

Changing their status from probation to warning or adding another year of probation to their current year is reeeaaaaly going to teach those lying, cheating bastards a lesson. SACS will never, ever yank their accreditation.

devildeac
04-26-2016, 07:09 AM
I'll echo OF's thoughts and most of the posters here. I've tried to become educated on this issue over the last 12-18 months and thought I had done a reasonably good job with that. I've even tried to accomplish that by separating my hatred for all things tarh**lian (yea, riiight :o) from a data analysis task and believed I had done a reasonable job at that, too. Then, considering the apparent overwhelming evidence presented, the original 59 page NOA with ~730 pages of exhibits, five level 1 violations (including LOIC), admission of academic fraud to SACS, other punishments over the last few years for "similar" offenses, I believed the ncaa had their chance to severely punish unc/make an example of them/(re)establish a higher standard for the SA and show what the governing body was established for. But, was I ever wrong. However, I did learn a new word in the process: feckless. I also learned a valuable lesson: spend a lot less time on the internet. And, I hope to have a delicious dinner tonight after I make a few phone calls or stops at The Fresh Market/Harris Teeter/Trader Joe's or EarthFare on the way home tonight to see if any of those stores carry this in their fresh (or frozen) food sections.

6316

I've heard this is excellent with an imperial stout.

:o

stevoflurane
04-26-2016, 07:17 AM
Given what we know about McCants' transcripts from 2005, can someone please tell me how he is eligible to play? I just don't understand how he can take all these independent study courses and still be eligible. I have not heard a serious explanation about this and am very confused why this gets pushed under the rug. It seems pretty black and white, unless I am missing something. Please help.

CameronBlue
04-26-2016, 07:23 AM
I realize this post will be immediately dismissed as impractical but after reading some of the posts in this thread, wrought with understandable despair, let me just casually remind you as alumni and fans of the power you hold as consumers. It's not a position lacking influence. How you choose to use it is the question and whether this issue is important enough to you to take collective action. Just a thought.

BLPOG
04-26-2016, 07:33 AM
Given what we know about McCants' transcripts from 2005, can someone please tell me how he is eligible to play? I just don't understand how he can take all these independent study courses and still be eligible. I have not heard a serious explanation about this and am very confused why this gets pushed under the rug. It seems pretty black and white, unless I am missing something. Please help.

He was eligible because UNC wants him to be and the NCAA cannot manage to act with the slightest level of competence or integrity.

MarkD83
04-26-2016, 07:41 AM
I realize this post will be immediately dismissed as impractical but after reading some of the posts in this thread, wrought with understandable despair, let me just casually remind you as alumni and fans of the power you hold as consumers. It's not a position lacking influence. How you choose to use it is the question and whether this issue is important enough to you to take collective action. Just a thought.

I agree with the power of the consumer. I am now more than pleased that the NCAA championship saw a dramatic reduction in viewership (even though the reason may be that it was not on CBS).

Perhaps since the NCAA has essentially announced that it is a "semi-professional" sports league we can remind them of several things:

1) They play much better football in the NFL
2) They play much better basketball in the NBA
3) In March it starts to be warm enough to take a hike in the park, ride a bike and/or play golf.

If you want my entertainment dollars this is what you will have to compete against.

jipops
04-26-2016, 07:45 AM
I have to say, this has put a serious damper on my already waning interest in college athletics.

If this is how the NCAA wants to operate they need to just go away period. I have no interest in anything with their logo on it. I'm pretty much ready to wash my hands of the whole thing,

Sadly it will also mean me saying goodbye to Duke basketball. But sometimes in life one has to draw a line. The silver lining for me is that I was probably going to leave the scene anyway upon Coach K's retirement (hence the waning part), my only reason to stay was due to my enormous respect for him and the program he built, the rest of college athletics scene I was merely tolerating for the sake of supporting K. So this only accelerated my time table by a few years.

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one. I watched almost none of the acc tournament and very little of the ncaa this past season. After this debacle I can only imagine it being even less. And I grew up on this stuff. I think, as consumers, this may be the only real action we can take to right what has obviously been such a serious wrong. Just stop watching it. The ncaa is every bit as complicit as the cheats in this scandal.

plimnko
04-26-2016, 07:54 AM
Does this make the cheat hills the OJ Simpson of the NCAA? And will the NCAA now be known as the (U)NCAA?

swood1000
04-26-2016, 08:23 AM
Given what we know about McCants' transcripts from 2005, can someone please tell me how he is eligible to play? I just don't understand how he can take all these independent study courses and still be eligible. I have not heard a serious explanation about this and am very confused why this gets pushed under the rug. It seems pretty black and white, unless I am missing something. Please help.
I can take a shot at it, and tell you what I assume is going through their heads.

One approach the NCAA can take is academic fraud. However the NCAA Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee (LRIC) and the Legislative Council determined that the university has the final say on whether, pursuant to its own internal policies and procedures, the conduct at issue results in a violation of institutional academic integrity policy. UNC apparently determined that it did not, and even argued to SACS that these classes should be allowed to stand.

6317

When the university determines that there was no academic misconduct the NCAA has gone ahead and charged extra benefits, as they did with Syracuse and as they did in the first NOA to UNC. However, no doubt UNC made the argument, and the enforcement staff accepted it, that these "paper classes" were available to all students and were not specially available to athletes. What the NCAA objects to is treating athletes differently from the way all the rest of the students are treated. If all the classes in the university are devoid of content that is an issue for SACS, the accrediting body, but not for the NCAA. The NCAA requires that the university be accredited and will leave questions as to the rigor of the classes to SACS, as long as the athletes are treated the same way as the other students. So they apparently determined that athletes had no greater access to these classes. In the original NOA they charged extra benefits in the form of increased help from the academic counselors. UNC probably argued that non-athletes who were weak students also were put into these classes by their academic counselors, which is in fact true.

My argument was that these classes were not "generally available" to the regular students because they were not informed of their true nature in the regular class bulletin but had to be told about them by someone with inside knowledge, so I likened it to the NCAA case in which extra benefits were found when discounts were available to all but only the athletes were told of them. And I argued that even if the counselors for the non-athletes told some non-athletes about them they were still not "generally available" to all the students.

So the classes McCants took were available to all students and UNC apparently says that those classes do not constitute academic misconduct. So apparently this announces that incredibly easy classes can be available to athletes as long as all students get equal access and it's an issue for the accrediting body.

Here's a summary of the new rules in this area (not applicable in this case):

Actions that violate the school's academic misconduct policies and procedures
• If an institutional staff member or coach was involved it's an infraction

• Otherwise it's an infraction if you have at least one of the following:


•• The alteration or falsification of a student-athlete's transcript or academic record;
•• An erroneous declaration of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics and the student-athlete subsequently competes while ineligible;
•• An erroneous declaration of eligibility to receive financial aid and the student-athlete subsequently receives financial aid while ineligible; or
•• The erroneous awarding of an NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) point.
For actions that do not violate the school's academic misconduct policies and procedures it is a violation if all of the following are present:

• A current or former institutional staff member or representative of athletics interest provides the impermissible academic assistance;

• The academic assistance or academic exception provided is not generally available to the institution's student-body or students involved in the course;
• The assistance is substantial;
• The assistance is not permitted in Bylaw 16.3; and
• The assistance leads to the certification of a student-athlete's eligibility to practice, compete, receive financial aid or earn an APR point.


I would think that Crowder's actions would be a violation of the school's academic misconduct policies by a staff member, but then I can't explain why they wouldn't find that to be a violation now. It does appear that schools now and in the future are on safe ground in creating easy classes for athletes as long as they are available to the students generally. Maybe the NCAA will come out with an explanation.

Edit: as to Independent Study classes exceeding the maximum number, I don't know. Maybe UNC was able to show that non-athletes also were able to exceed the maximum number and were allowed to graduate using that credit.

stevoflurane
04-26-2016, 08:34 AM
Thanks swood.

FerryFor50
04-26-2016, 08:37 AM
UNC fans starting to come out of the woodwork to gloat. Basic summary: they know they got away with murder.

BLPOG
04-26-2016, 08:47 AM
IMO, trying to explain why the NCAA might be able to justify letting UNC skate is a waste of time - those justifications ignore other evidence and past precedent with other schools (as pointed out by swood1000). This case is an example of people in power defying rules and making up their own "facts" because they know they can get away with it.

The NCAA is acting disgracefully, again, and the only reason they don't hold the title in that contest is that UNC fields the dream team for dishonorable behavior.

sammy3469
04-26-2016, 08:58 AM
Edit: as to Independent Study classes exceeding the maximum number, I don't know. Maybe UNC was able to show that non-athletes also were able to exceed the maximum number and were allowed to graduate using that credit.

I can sort of see the very twisted logic of the "benefits" part of old allegation 1 going away...except they just went up the ladder of authority in the 'Cuse case and said extra benefits can be narrow and can apply even when the university says no academic misconduct happened. If I was 'Cuse, I'd be having a coronary right now. They basically argued the exact same thing and had the hammer come at them. Keep in mind they received a 5 year probation for what the NCAA termed 10 years of misconduct (like you I have no idea how allegation 1B just disappeared).

There's so many contradictions now that it's just laughable. 'Cuse gets treated differently than UNC. The NCAA says they are cooperating yet cites 19.1.1-c in Allegation 4 ("failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation"), they cite that and seemingly water down the allegations, and I can go on. Hell taken to the logical extreme, if this is really an academic monitoring issue with no NCAA prevue, why they hell are they even citing the non-Boxill part of Allegation 4 and why is the LOIC even there.

moonpie23
04-26-2016, 09:13 AM
let us rejoice in the FACT that Brandon Ingram may very well have been the difference in the natty game....


there you go........you're welcome...

OZ
04-26-2016, 09:14 AM
UNC fans starting to come out of the woodwork to gloat. Basic summary: they know they got away with murder.


Actually, I have yet to meet a UNC fan and/or alumni who has admitted any wrong doing. In fact, I have encountered very few who seem to care beyond "unjustly" losing past championships. With 35,000 applications for the incoming freshman class, it would seem the only ones concerned would be those on the outside looking in.

PackMan97
04-26-2016, 09:14 AM
let us rejoice in the FACT that Brandon Ingram may very well have been the difference in the natty game...


there you go....you're welcome...

Thank you.

It has been added to the list of reason I am thankful for Duke (even if I don't always like "you people").

allenmurray
04-26-2016, 09:24 AM
I am in this camp. Sports are primarily part of Universities because they contribute to their branding. The scandal has exposed how the academic component of the University can operate to maintain arbitrarily defined student-athlete eligibility. Most every University has their courses or courses to do this. This one was just over the top absurd- with no lectures and no professors. Sports are so critical to University branding that all involved will find ways to keep it going - even when some athletes are illiterate or incapable of doing college work. The NCAA and Universities are in symbiosis. This scandal goes at the heart of what is also wrong with the NCAA- a system that values TV dollars over what is best for the athlete.

Incredibly well said. And while I am a Duke fan, and loved watching them play, having athletes who intend from the very start to only be on a campus for one year is also a part of my lessened interest in college athletics. Irving, Parker, Okafor were not college students in the traditional sense of the word. I have no problem with us having recruited them, and they represented Duke very well. But the landscape of D-1 big-time college sports (meaning basketball and football) is incredibly different from that of students in other sports or schools at the D-2 or D-3 (or even lower D-1) levels. We romanticize the idea of college athletics to a great extreme.

Bostondevil
04-26-2016, 09:29 AM
After all of this - and WOMEN's basketball is going to take the fall? WOMEN!?!

Wankers, wankers, wankers, sexist, misogynistic wankers.

Blame it on women. Again. And yeah, I realize that a lot of the major players in this whole thing are women and the whistle-blower is a woman. But making only the women take the fall is beyond the pale.

Wankers.

DukieInKansas
04-26-2016, 09:37 AM
Someone needs to look into Mark Emmert's Seychelles account to see if Swofford's wire cleared yet.

And, perhaps, Sylvia's account to verify that Roy's wire cleared. She should get something for being the sacrificial sheep. ;)

DukieInKansas
04-26-2016, 09:41 AM
I can sort of see the very twisted logic of the "benefits" part of old allegation 1 going away...except they just went up the ladder of authority in the 'Cuse case and said extra benefits can be narrow and can apply even when the university says no academic misconduct happened. If I was 'Cuse, I'd be having a coronary right now. They basically argued the exact same thing and had the hammer come at them. Keep in mind they received a 5 year probation for what the NCAA termed 10 years of misconduct (like you I have no idea how allegation 1B just disappeared).

There's so many contradictions now that it's just laughable. 'Cuse gets treated differently than UNC. The NCAA says they are cooperating yet cites 19.1.1-c in Allegation 4 ("failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation"), they cite that and seemingly water down the allegations, and I can go on. Hell taken to the logical extreme, if this is really an academic monitoring issue with no NCAA prevue, why they hell are they even citing the non-Boxill part of Allegation 4 and why is the LOIC even there.

Syracuse = Cleveland State?

swood1000
04-26-2016, 09:42 AM
There is now a fairly good road map for those schools wishing to take advantage of this phenomenon. There was a case involving Auburn (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html?pagewanted=all) in which a professor offered one-on-one classes that benefited athletes and that required no work.


So Professor Gundlach looked at the player's academic files, which led him to the discovery that many Auburn athletes were receiving high grades from the same professor for sociology and criminology courses that required no attendance and little work. ...At one point, Professor Petee was carrying the workload of more than three and a half professors, an academic schedule that his colleagues said no one could legitimately handle. ...Professor Petee's directed-reading classes, which nonathletes took as well, helped athletes in several sports improve their grade-point averages and preserve their athletic eligibility.


This was mentioned in the original UNC NOA (see FI175). The NCAA took no action (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/sports/ncaafootball/20ncaa.html) concerning this issue in the Auburn case. There was a similar case involving the University of Michigan (http://www.mlive.com/wolverines/academics/stories/index.ssf/2008/03/athletes_steered_to_prof.html), on which the NCAA also took no action. Inside Higher Ed had an article about this titled When Independent Study Raises Red Flags (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/18/michigan).



The question, then, is who should set the tone on independent study? While the NCAA has talked recently about taking a closer look at which majors athletes tend to choose, Erik Christianson, an association spokesman, said that it's up to campuses to come up with independent study policies that best fit their institutions.

Kretchmar said such decisions as how many such courses an athlete (or non-athlete) can take, or how many students a professor can take on should be handled internally.

So the bottom line is that a recent article on Inside Carolina (http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1663061-the-ncaa-s-1-a-dilemma) had it right when they said that it was going to be difficult for the NCAA to prosecute UNC for this after ignoring it in the past.

Skitzle
04-26-2016, 09:56 AM
I keep coming back to how depressing this is. It really really is INSANE.

There was this thread of hope that said the NCAA turning a blind eye to UNC's blatant extension request for the Men's Season was something other than compliance with fraud, but the NCAA is JUST as guilty as UNC. Yet, nothing you can do nowhere to turn. 5-6 years of blatant misdirection and smoke and it all worked.


I live in Turkey where the government does similar things. Is this how we succeed in life now? Just lie and cheat and continue to do it because ultimately it doesn't matter if you have enough power or money?

This is depressing. I want to give up the NCAA basketball for good, but I love Duke basketball too much to stop caring...

Am I the only one that feels this way?

swood1000
04-26-2016, 09:57 AM
I can sort of see the very twisted logic of the "benefits" part of old allegation 1 going away...except they just went up the ladder of authority in the 'Cuse case and said extra benefits can be narrow and can apply even when the university says no academic misconduct happened. If I was 'Cuse, I'd be having a coronary right now. They basically argued the exact same thing and had the hammer come at them. Keep in mind they received a 5 year probation for what the NCAA termed 10 years of misconduct (like you I have no idea how allegation 1B just disappeared).

There's so many contradictions now that it's just laughable. 'Cuse gets treated differently than UNC. The NCAA says they are cooperating yet cites 19.1.1-c in Allegation 4 ("failure to cooperate in an NCAA investigation"), they cite that and seemingly water down the allegations, and I can go on. Hell taken to the logical extreme, if this is really an academic monitoring issue with no NCAA prevue, why they hell are they even citing the non-Boxill part of Allegation 4 and why is the LOIC even there.
In the Syracuse case, though, the conduct was described as follows:


The support services mentor, and later basketball facility receptionist, and the support services tutor created, revised or wrote academic coursework for the three men's basketball student-athletes. In doing so, they provided student-athletes with impermissible assistance and services. That assistance and service was not part of, or the intent of, the student-athlete support services program. It exceeded the type of support provided by the institution and generally available through the student-athlete support services program. Therefore, when the support services mentor (basketball facility receptionist) and support services tutor created, revised or wrote academic coursework they provided student-athletes with extra benefits and violated NCAA Bylaw 16.11.2.1.

So the enforcement staff said that even if creating academic coursework for student-athletes did not violate the Syracuse academic misconduct rules, non-athletes did not receive this kind of assistance so they were going to charge extra benefits. In the UNC case they obviously concluded that whatever assistance the student-athletes received from their counselors was also provided to the non-athletes from their counselors.

Edit: UNC's attorneys earned their fees on this one.

nmduke2001
04-26-2016, 10:01 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-it-looks-more-likely-the-ncaa-will-go-soft-on-n-c--s-men-s-basketball-program-220926833.html

"So if you're waiting for the hammer to drop on North Carolina, keep waiting. And when it does drop, it could well be wrapped in velvet to cushion the blow.

MChambers
04-26-2016, 10:09 AM
And, perhaps, Sylvia's account to verify that Roy's wire cleared. She should get something for being the sacrificial sheep. ;)
The one thing the NCAA has to be careful about is how it characterizes the role of the sacrificial sheep. Although no judge would or should want to get involved in how the club treats its member, Sylvia isn't a member, and could bring a defamation case against the NCAA and UNC. That would be interesting.

MChambers
04-26-2016, 10:11 AM
This is depressing. I want to give up the NCAA basketball for good, but I love Duke basketball too much to stop caring...

Am I the only one that feels this way?
I feel that way too.

MarkD83
04-26-2016, 10:15 AM
The one thing the NCAA has to be careful about is how it characterizes the role of the sacrificial sheep. Although no judge would or should want to get involved in how the club treats its member, Sylvia isn't a member, and could bring a defamation case against the NCAA and UNC. That would be interesting.

My gut feeling is that they have already come to a settlement with her.

Neals384
04-26-2016, 10:16 AM
I can take a shot at it, and tell you what I assume is going through their heads.

One approach the NCAA can take is academic fraud. However the NCAA Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee (LRIC) and the Legislative Council determined that the university has the final say on whether, pursuant to its own internal policies and procedures, the conduct at issue results in a violation of institutional academic integrity policy. UNC apparently determined that it did not, and even argued to SACS that these classes should be allowed to stand.

6317

When the university determines that there was no academic misconduct the NCAA has gone ahead and charged extra benefits, as they did with Syracuse and as they did in the first NOA to UNC. However, no doubt UNC made the argument, and the enforcement staff accepted it, that these "paper classes" were available to all students and were not specially available to athletes. What the NCAA objects to is treating athletes differently from the way all the rest of the students are treated. If all the classes in the university are devoid of content that is an issue for SACS, the accrediting body, but not for the NCAA. The NCAA requires that the university be accredited and will leave questions as to the rigor of the classes to SACS, as long as the athletes are treated the same way as the other students. So they apparently determined that athletes had no greater access to these classes. In the original NOA they charged extra benefits in the form of increased help from the academic counselors. UNC probably argued that non-athletes who were weak students also were put into these classes by their academic counselors, which is in fact true.

My argument was that these classes were not "generally available" to the regular students because they were not informed of their true nature in the regular class bulletin but had to be told about them by someone with inside knowledge, so I likened it to the NCAA case in which extra benefits were found when discounts were available to all but only the athletes were told of them. And I argued that even if the counselors for the non-athletes told some non-athletes about them they were still not "generally available" to all the students.

So the classes McCants took were available to all students and UNC apparently says that those classes do not constitute academic misconduct. So apparently this announces that incredibly easy classes can be available to athletes as long as all students get equal access and it's an issue for the accrediting body.

Here's a summary of the new rules in this area (not applicable in this case):

Actions that violate the school's academic misconduct policies and procedures
If an institutional staff member or coach was involved it's an infraction

Otherwise it's an infraction if you have at least one of the following:


The alteration or falsification of a student-athlete's transcript or academic record;
An erroneous declaration of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics and the student-athlete subsequently competes while ineligible;
An erroneous declaration of eligibility to receive financial aid and the student-athlete subsequently receives financial aid while ineligible; or
The erroneous awarding of an NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) point.
For actions that do not violate the school's academic misconduct policies and procedures it is a violation if all of the following are present:

A current or former institutional staff member or representative of athletics interest provides the impermissible academic assistance;

The academic assistance or academic exception provided is not generally available to the institution's student-body or students involved in the course;
The assistance is substantial;
The assistance is not permitted in Bylaw 16.3; and
The assistance leads to the certification of a student-athlete's eligibility to practice, compete, receive financial aid or earn an APR point.


I would think that Crowder's actions would be a violation of the school's academic misconduct policies by a staff member, but then I can't explain why they wouldn't find that to be a violation now. It does appear that schools now and in the future are on safe ground in creating easy classes for athletes as long as they are available to the students generally. Maybe the NCAA will come out with an explanation.

Edit: as to Independent Study classes exceeding the maximum number, I don't know. Maybe UNC was able to show that non-athletes also were able to exceed the maximum number and were allowed to graduate using that credit.

Student Athletes can cheat as long as all students are also allowed to cheat? Please Swood, I'm eating breakfast.

duke79
04-26-2016, 10:23 AM
Incredibly well said. And while I am a Duke fan, and loved watching them play, having athletes who intend from the very start to only be on a campus for one year is also a part of my lessened interest in college athletics. Irving, Parker, Okafor were not college students in the traditional sense of the word. I have no problem with us having recruited them, and they represented Duke very well. But the landscape of D-1 big-time college sports (meaning basketball and football) is incredibly different from that of students in other sports or schools at the D-2 or D-3 (or even lower D-1) levels. We romanticize the idea of college athletics to a great extreme.

I couldn't agree more !! I've always thought that the OAD's (and perhaps many other D-1 basketball and football players, primarily), whether at Duke or elsewhere, make a mockery of the whole "student/athlete" ideal. Frankly, Bo Ryan may not have been too far off when he called them "rent-a-players" (even though it was said after a crushing defeat and with a "poor sport" attitude). I view the entire UNC scandal as an extension of this unfortunate reality. Academics play almost NO role in the college experience of many of these athletes. You can understand why some of those former UNC athletes are now suing the school for (essentially) "fraud". I hope they win in court!

swood1000
04-26-2016, 10:23 AM
The problem with relying on SACS to police the issue of fake classes is that they don't penalize for past bad behavior. All they want is for the university to fix the problem. If the problem is fixed and whatever caused it has been removed then they are happy. In the worst case scenario they will put a university on probation for a period but their weakness is that their only real weapon is the death sentence removing accreditation. And that can obviously not be imposed except in the most extreme circumstances.

So universities are free to look the other way. In the future they will be required by the NCAA to publish their academic misconduct policies and procedures and as long as the academic fraud is able to slip through the cracks of the policies and procedures, and as long as it is available to all students equally, then there will be no risk of a sanction from the NCAA. The worst case scenario is that it gets reported to SACS and the university says "Oh my goodness. We will put a stop to that at once and then everything will be OK."

BLPOG
04-26-2016, 10:25 AM
Am I the only one that feels this way?

Right now, I have to agree. To be honest, I would completely support a unilateral move by the university to refuse to ever play UNC again. If that meant the ACC forced us to forfeit games, so be it.

duke79
04-26-2016, 10:27 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/why-it-looks-more-likely-the-ncaa-will-go-soft-on-n-c--s-men-s-basketball-program-220926833.html

"So if you're waiting for the hammer to drop on North Carolina, keep waiting. And when it does drop, it could well be wrapped in velvet to cushion the blow.

Let's hope this is NOT true.......but I'm guessing that this is what will happen. The unfortunate reality is that UNC is too big (and too important) to fail. The NCAA does not have the guts to go after them the way they should. Does anyone think that if this same scandal (and to the same degree) happened at the University of Akron, that the NCAA would not have already shut down the program and destroyed the careers of everyone involved? It IS sickening.......but reality.

Trinity_93
04-26-2016, 10:31 AM
I keep coming back to how depressing this is. It really really is INSANE.

There was this thread of hope that said the NCAA turning a blind eye to UNC's blatant extension request for the Men's Season was something other than compliance with fraud, but the NCAA is JUST as guilty as UNC. Yet, nothing you can do nowhere to turn. 5-6 years of blatant misdirection and smoke and it all worked.


I live in Turkey where the government does similar things. Is this how we succeed in life now? Just lie and cheat and continue to do it because ultimately it doesn't matter if you have enough power or money?

This is depressing. I want to give up the NCAA basketball for good, but I love Duke basketball too much to stop caring...

Am I the only one that feels this way?

No. I live on Central European Time and if it's not a Saturday afternoon game, I have to stay up very late (or get up very early) to watch games via a paid streaming service. I love Duke sports but have to be very selective about what I watch and when, and what's the point if we're playing what is in essence an AAU team in Chapel Hill? Why bother? Even if we only pay the barest lip service to the ideals of the university, we're perpetually disadvantaged in an arms race where our opponents, now weaned off the AFAM teat, just declare 2/3 of their revenue athletes LD and dope them up with Ritalin, which would normally be a PED but is allowed with the team doctor's OK. No conflict of interest there, right?

Seriously, SACS will probably re-up UNC on probation because of the lying about the independent studies start date, but if they don't revoke UNC's accreditation, why should any "too big to fail" school bother? Reaccreditation is a huge pain in the butt with literally thousands of pages of documentation required -- if UNC gets renewed and I'm another school up for reaccreditation not named DeVry, I just don't sweat it and mail in a cover letter attached to my old copy of "Gravity's Rainbow" with Pynchon's name marked out and "University X" written in in red marker. SACS SHOULD burn it all down, not that they will. Disgust doesn't even begin to describe how I feel about UNC, and I have two graduate degrees from there.

If I were a State fan, I'd definitely quit. After 20+ years of utter frustration and knowing how the UNC-backed BOG took down Jim Valvano WHILE UNC WAS DOING 10X WORSE THINGS IN CHAPEL HILL AND HAD BEEN FOR YEARS, I would quit college athletics and never look back instead of continuing to tilt at cheating windmills doped up on PEDs. With K we are extremely fortunate to be able to compete with the cheaters on our own terms, which is in its way fighting the good fight, but still, it's like the old saw about the gambler who keeps getting kicked out of a crooked poker game. When asked why he keeps coming back, he says, "it may be crooked, but it's the only game in town."

I think for me it may be time to fold.

swood1000
04-26-2016, 10:37 AM
Student Athletes can cheat as long as all students are also allowed to cheat? Please Swood, I'm eating breakfast.
Please remember that I'm just the messenger, though I am sorry for having to bring such news.

In the future it will be an automatic NCAA violation if the conduct (a) violates the schools published academic misconduct policies and procedures and (b) a staff member or coach was involved. We'll have to see how schools write these documents and how the NCAA interprets them. If a professor offers an incredibly easy class, would we expect that to violate a typical school's published academic misconduct policies and procedures? Furthermore, the rule will probably remain that the school itself gets to decide whether the conduct violated the policies. If it doesn't violate the policies and is "generally available to the institution's student-body or students involved in the course" then it will not be a violation.

DarkstarWahoo
04-26-2016, 10:38 AM
But I imagine most of you feel the same way I do. Chapel Hill fabricated an entire academic department, and the NCAA is going to slap women's hoops on the wrist and call it good. The mind boggles.

I've seen a fellow UVA fan mention this, but I'd love to see some random school (preferably outside the ACC) do the exact same thing and dare the NCAA to do something about it. Let Baylor or Oklahoma take the inevitable next step toward completely nonexistent classes.

DukePA
04-26-2016, 10:39 AM
I couldn't agree more !! I've always thought that the OAD's (and perhaps many other D-1 basketball and football players, primarily), whether at Duke or elsewhere, make a mockery of the whole "student/athlete" ideal. Frankly, Bo Ryan may not have been too far off when he called them "rent-a-players" (even though it was said after a crushing defeat and with a "poor sport" attitude). I view the entire UNC scandal as an extension of this unfortunate reality. Academics play almost NO role in the college experience of many of these athletes. You can understand why some of those former UNC athletes are now suing the school for (essentially) "fraud". I hope they win in court!

I know a tar heel alum who has been bragging that unc "doesn't have OADs anymore" and shakes his head at Duke for recruiting them. Although I wish we wouldn't have them on our teams, I fully expect unc to be full of them again once the dust clears and kids realize they can go to carolina and put forth little academic effort Gross.

devildeac
04-26-2016, 11:04 AM
My gut feeling is that they have already come to a settlement with her.

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. She's 64 years old and has coached the cheaters for ~30 years so what does it take for a severance/retirement package accompanied by a non-disclosure/non-defamation/no lawsuit agreement...

swood1000
04-26-2016, 11:10 AM
The response of UNC is that this is not an athletic scandal, but an academic one. Okay, let us accept that and demand that the Dept of Education and Dept of Justice pursue an investigation of UNC just as they do other schools which offer worthless degrees with classes which require little or no work. If various for profit colleges have been forced to close because the degrees they offer are worthless, why not UNC-CH? Ridiculous, you say? The defense they have offered is "This was not cheating to help us keep unqualified athletes eligible. Every student had the opportunity to take a fake class!" If fake classes are part of their academic culture and NOT simply a way to cheat to gain an athletic advantage, then they need to accept the consequences of being a fake university.

They sold their birthright of being a great academic university to be able to keep flying banners they cheated to win. That was the choice they made, so now they need to reap the consequences of that choice. The goal of NCAA staff is to keep their jobs, so it is no surprise they show no commitment to principle when doing so might endanger the NCAA and their jobs. That the Faculty and Administrators at UNC are so willing to abandon all pretense of caring about academic integrity and the reputation so many generations fought to earn is both more surprising and much, much sadder.
The Dept. of Education is currently doing that. In their most recent report to SACS UNC disclosed that the Dept. of Education is conducting a Title IV Program Review, and has been doing so for over a year, which is quite a bit longer than program reviews typically take. Title IV covers federal student loans and grants. At the end there will be a Program Review Report. The good news is that misbehavior involving everybody is exactly the kind of misconduct that they are looking for i.e., taking federal money and not supplying an education. They have more penalty resources at their disposal than SACS, though unfortunately, removing banners is not one of them.

Doria
04-26-2016, 11:15 AM
The Dept. of Education is currently doing that. In their most recent report to SACS UNC disclosed that the Dept. of Education is conducting a Title IV Program Review, and has been doing so for over a year, which is quite a bit longer than program reviews typically take. Title IV covers federal student loans and grants. At the end there will be a Program Review Report. The good news is that misbehavior involving everybody is exactly the kind of misconduct that they are looking for i.e., taking federal money and not supplying an education. They have more penalty resources at their disposal than SACS, though unfortunately, removing banners is not one of them.

I could live with this. Ultimately, I just want them to get some kind of meaningful punishment. If it isn't athletic, I can live with it being academic from some direction.

swood1000
04-26-2016, 11:22 AM
I believe there could be multi-sport punishments that could affect the men's basketball team (e.g., a blanket 1- or 2-year postseason ban, scholarship reductions) due to the failure to monitor and loss of institutional control. I assume someone will go through the bylaws and figure out what is possible on that front.

But vacated wins/banners look like they are off the table for the men's basketball team.
Here are the current penalty guidelines, though UNC will be subject to the prior ones which are slightly less onerous:

6318

Nick
04-26-2016, 11:38 AM
I saw this on a Syracuse message board:

"If only Louisville had made hookers available to roughly the same number of non-athletes."

moonpie23
04-26-2016, 11:43 AM
i keep coming back here hoping that one of our legal eagles had unearthed some overlooked tidbit that would doom the cheaters. alas...not gonna happen..


well, the silver lining is that i won't be in jail for the planned celebration, nor on the hook for renting out Sulivans for the evening for about 50 friends and clients...


life goes on.....oh, did i mention that we are gonna be STACKED next season?

Tom B.
04-26-2016, 12:12 PM
I saw this on a Syracuse message board:

"If only Louisville had made hookers available to roughly the same number of non-athletes."


Shut down the Internet, we have a winner.

Doria
04-26-2016, 12:14 PM
I saw this on a Syracuse message board:

"If only Louisville had made hookers available to roughly the same number of non-athletes."

Ahahaha, that is the perfect response! Great find!

Tom B.
04-26-2016, 12:48 PM
You misunderstand Bilas' obsession. Yes, he hates the NCAA, but it is in the context of eliminating the amateurism model, getting athletes paid, and trying to be hip with rap lyrics on twitter or whatever. Bilas will find a way to blame spilling coffee on himself on the NCAA forbidding college athletes from getting endorsement deals, but this stuff about classes and cheating doesn't really fit into his narrative.

The thing is, the Amended NOA is the kind of thing that Bilas should be screaming about, based on his past statements.

His whole shtick is based on the premise that the NCAA is just a moneymaking organization that doesn't care about the welfare of student athletes, and exploits them to serve its bottom line.

Well, here we have an institution that ran a "shadow curriculum" (Wainstein's words) for nearly 20 years, and steered athletes (many of whom came from underprivileged backgrounds) into that curriculum not out of any desire to educate them -- indeed, the curriculum was neither designed to provide nor capable of providing any meaningful education -- but primarily to keep them eligible to play sports.

So what does the NCAA do? It takes football and men's basketball out of the NOA. It bends over backwards to insulate the two biggest moneymaking programs -- and two biggest participants in the shadow curriculum -- from any significant sanctions.

The existence of the shadow curriculum, and its widespread use by football and men's basketball, was student-athlete exploitation at its finest. And the NCAA -- the organization that, according to Jay Bilas, should be doing more to protect student-athletes -- basically shrugs and says, "Eh...nothing we can do about that."

If student-athletes are to be protected, it begins with holding the feet of the institutions who engage in this exploitation to the fire. But that's exactly the opposite of what the NCAA did here.

The result -- to quote Mr. Bilas, "Everyone's money is safe."

If Jay truly means what he's been saying, he should not be cool with this.

madscavenger
04-26-2016, 01:13 PM
Someone needs to look into Mark Emmert's Seychelles account to see if Swofford's wire cleared yet.


Swofford Emmert LLC

Too, rumour is they're really fond of Panama hats.

devildeac
04-26-2016, 01:18 PM
Swofford Emmert LLC

Too, rumour is they're really fond of Panama hats.

Bringing new/another meaning to the term "banana republic" perhaps?

sammy3469
04-26-2016, 01:29 PM
Here are the current penalty guidelines, though UNC will be subject to the prior ones which are slightly less onerous:

6318

While I have no hope the NCAA will end up doing anything to vacate anything besides WBB records, the old structure is arguably better suited to deal with institutional malfeasance.

Point 19.5.2.1(d) in the old structure has addresses "institutional staff members" who "knowingly engaged in or condoned" the major violations. Those individuals would either need to be fired, suspended for at least a year, reassigned so the don't have any contact with SA, or other disciplinary action approved by the COI (this is from the 2010-11 manual). In the new manual they would need a show-cause order to accomplish the same thing which arguably has a higher burden. Well the ANOA has a very low burden on "knowingly engaged in or condoned". This is how the NCAA defines the LOIC charge:


Both campus and the athletics department administrators' reactions and responses to those opportunities were inadequate and ineffective, creating the conditions and opportunities that made possible the violations described in Allegation Nos. 1 and 4.

So basically, anyone in the athletic department that was made aware of the AFAM course anomalies and did nothing may/should fall into this category (Roy's "clustering" comment might come in handy here). In the old NOA, this type of logic wasn't present and the only people in the athletics department really at risk were those that provided benefits, ASPSA counselors, and Boxill (ie those exposed in the LOIC charge was much narrower)

Will they do that...probably not (or more correctly there's nothing in the ANOA that would lead you to believe the COI will be this harsh...ie no names, no non-WBB sports, etc.), but the one thing that the new ANOA did do was provide a more logical argument to get to a place where the COI could do something like that to a whole host of people that wasn't as apparent in the old NOA as the LOIC just touched on Boxill, ASPSA, and the academic administration. Sure this is grasping at straws, but I still think something harsh in the probation, postseason ban, fine realm is still coming to them. While the NCAA ditched the micro argument they did buttress the bigger macro athletic department argument which gives them a tad more latitude.

4Gen
04-26-2016, 01:33 PM
Your neighbor tells you that her son, a lousy high school student, made the Dean's list at Podunk U. You congratulate her, with all the feigned enthusiasm you can muster.

Then it's announced that Marcus Paige is an academic All-American, and all of informed America smirks.

What does this have to do with the NCAA investigation?

Everything.

Sir Stealth
04-26-2016, 01:38 PM
The amazing thing about the UNC troll is that his fictitious ANOA was actually the logical conclusion of analyzing NCAA regulations together with the available exhibits from the Wanstein report and UNC's response admitting academic fraud to SACS. So a UNC fan, knowing that UNC would skate, was still able, relatively quickly and easily, to describe what the NCAA could and should have done to make the case against UNC based on real facts, documents, data. There were a couple of weird boundaries and numbers tossed out that didn't quite fit and probably should have alerted everyone that it didn't smell right, but on the whole, it made a lot of sense. But despite the troll's clear knowledge of how UNC could have been hammered, it was all just to shove it in the faces of opposing "banner chasers."

I agree with those who feel this takes a lot of the fun out of following college sports. If the rules for forming a team are so widely variable among programs, the point in competition between them is greatly diminished. It was nice to see UNC called out for their fraud as the spotlight shone a little brighter during the tournament, but to the average person, the stain of UNC's wrongdoing will vanish in a brief amount of time. Most probably believe the "everybody does it" line.

My UNC-grad friends, great, accomplished people who I consider to have integrity, already believe this (and UNC fans who didn't go to school there were never going to care anyway). Even light-hearted joking about UNC's lack of integrity is clearly unappreciated among otherwise friendly banter about basketball. If I vocally stated what I truly believe, that all of UNC's athletic accomplishments are ill-gotten and valueless, and that the entire institution itself has shamed itself and tainted it's academic mission (and their degrees) by valuing the banners over a commitment to integrity, they would look at me like I had said something incredibly rude and out of line. They haven't viewed the most guilty Wanstein documents on twitter and message boards; they don't pay that close attention. The only thing to make them understand that this wasn't "everybody does it" would be a true comeuppance laid down by the NCAA. That is clearly never going to happen now.

devildeac
04-26-2016, 01:52 PM
While I have no hope the NCAA will end up doing anything to vacate anything besides WBB records, the old structure is arguably better suited to deal with institutional malfeasance.

Point 19.5.2.1(d) in the old structure has addresses "institutional staff members" who "knowingly engaged in or condoned" the major violations. Those individuals would either need to be fired, suspended for at least a year, reassigned so the don't have any contact with SA, or other disciplinary action approved by the COI (this is from the 2010-11 manual). In the new manual they would need a show-cause order to accomplish the same thing which arguably has a higher burden. Well the ANOA has a very low burden on "knowingly engaged in or condoned". This is how the NCAA defines the LOIC charge:



So basically, anyone in the athletic department that was made aware of the AFAM course anomalies and did nothing may/should fall into this category (Roy's "clustering" comment might come in handy here). In the old NOA, this type of logic wasn't present and the only people in the athletics department really at risk were those that provided benefits, ASPSA counselors, and Boxill (ie those exposed in the LOIC charge was much narrower)

Will they do that...probably not (or more correctly there's nothing in the ANOA that would lead you to believe the COI will be this harsh...ie no names, no non-WBB sports, etc.), but the one thing that the new ANOA did do was provide a more logical argument to get to a place where the COI could do something like that to a whole host of people that wasn't as apparent in the old NOA as the LOIC just touched on Boxill, ASPSA, and the academic administration. Sure this is grasping at straws, but I still think something harsh in the probation, postseason ban, fine realm is still coming to them. While the NCAA ditched the micro argument they did buttress the bigger macro athletic department argument which gives them a tad more latitude.

Was it over when the tarh**ls "bombed" Indianapolis?

Yes, sadly/pathetically, I think this time it is/was. :(

allenmurray
04-26-2016, 02:01 PM
I couldn't agree more !! I've always thought that the OAD's (and perhaps many other D-1 basketball and football players, primarily), whether at Duke or elsewhere, make a mockery of the whole "student/athlete" ideal. Frankly, Bo Ryan may not have been too far off when he called them "rent-a-players" (even though it was said after a crushing defeat and with a "poor sport" attitude). I view the entire UNC scandal as an extension of this unfortunate reality. Academics play almost NO role in the college experience of many of these athletes. You can understand why some of those former UNC athletes are now suing the school for (essentially) "fraud". I hope they win in court!

D-3 schools are a lot of fun to watch play (my son played D-3 basketball for a season, before transferring to a school that better met his academic goals). The gym was packed and every fan/student knew all the players because they actually went to class with them, had lunch with them, saw them around campus, etc. Part of that was due to the small size of the school, but the larger part was due to the fact at those D-3 schools (even the large and academically prestigious ones like Emory, University of Chicago, etc.) the students are not in a cocoon with separate dining rooms, meals, lodging, tutors, etc., but they are simply members of the student body.

PackMan97
04-26-2016, 02:07 PM
The amazing thing about the UNC troll is that his fictitious ANOA was actually the logical conclusion of analyzing NCAA regulations together with the available exhibits from the Wanstein report and UNC's response admitting academic fraud to SACS. So a UNC fan, knowing that UNC would skate, was still able, relatively quickly and easily, to describe what the NCAA could and should have done to make the case against UNC based on real facts, documents, data. There were a couple of weird boundaries and numbers tossed out that didn't quite fit and probably should have alerted everyone that it didn't smell right, but on the whole, it made a lot of sense. But despite the troll's clear knowledge of how UNC could have been hammered, it was all just to shove it in the faces of opposing "banner chasers."

The best way to run a con is with the truth.

RCCMPD used the truth of what UNC had done and what the NCAA should do. I contend he is someone on the inside of UNC's AD because he knew when to run the con. He knew when the ANOA was to be released. He knew what was (and more importantly what wasn't) in the ANOA. He had the timing and the delivery down perfectly.

I contend that there is no better indictment of the NCAA than his con.

DevilBen02
04-26-2016, 02:10 PM
The unfortunate reality is that UNC is too big (and too important) to fail. The NCAA does not have the guts to go after them the way they should. Does anyone think that if this same scandal (and to the same degree) happened at the University of Akron, that the NCAA would not have already shut down the program and destroyed the careers of everyone involved? It IS sickening....but reality.

I don't understand how so many people think that UNC is too big to fail in the eyes of the NCAA. The more logical characterization of this process in my mind is that the smoking gun just isn't there. If this whole shadow curriculum was set up in the early 90's as some have suggested, it's very possible that any email or other correspondence about setting up a program to ensure eligibility at that time is long lost or destroyed. From then, maybe they intentionally kept the paper trail thin, or maybe kids were just always informed about the classes by word of mouth (a secret that was institutional knowledge). Any way it happened, without actual evidence pointing to men's basketball or football along the lines of what Boxill generated, and without the cooperation of Crowder and Nyangoro to explain who knew what, the NCAA just doesn't have a bylaw that was literally violated by this scheme. Even if there's enough circumstantial evidence to let everyone infer that UNC has violated the spirit of the law, the NCAA doesn't have a particular rule they can point to, which is likely why the impermissible benefits theory was concocted. In addition, UNC has shown by the money they've pumped into PR and legal fees that they're not going to go down quietly. As a result, anything the NCAA throws at them better stick firmly, or else they're likely prepared for a long appeal process.

jv001
04-26-2016, 02:12 PM
If the Cheats skate on this, I think all ACC fans should act like the university of cheats doesn't exist. Never mention their name again. I think I can do that. They just don't matter any more any longer. They are the typical politicians of the day, lie, lie and lie some more. GoDuke!

hallcity
04-26-2016, 02:18 PM
The best way to run a con is with the truth.

RCCMPD used the truth of what UNC had done and what the NCAA should do. I contend he is someone on the inside of UNC's AD because he knew when to run the con. He knew when the ANOA was to be released. He knew what was (and more importantly what wasn't) in the ANOA. He had the timing and the delivery down perfectly.

I contend that there is no better indictment of the NCAA than his con.

This wasn't an amateur operation. It was a well-planned, multipronged professional job involving several false identities carried out over the course of months. It was done to discover what UNC's opponents knew and to eventually discredit them. It was either done by UNC's PR firm or a contractor they hired. I hope someone will ask Bubba what he knew about this and whether state funds were used for it.

swood1000
04-26-2016, 02:30 PM
Here are the current penalty guidelines, though UNC will be subject to the prior ones which are slightly less onerous:

6318
Here's another part of the current penalty guidelines.

6319

devildeac
04-26-2016, 02:37 PM
Here's another part of the current penalty guidelines.

6319

At this stage, in any of those charts, why do my eyes keep migrating toward the mitigation sections of all those and their accompanying zeros? :rolleyes::mad:

DukieInKansas
04-26-2016, 02:42 PM
This wasn't an amateur operation. It was a well-planned, multipronged professional job involving several false identities carried out over the course of months. It was done to discover what UNC's opponents knew and to eventually discredit them. It was either done by UNC's PR firm or a contractor they hired. I hope someone will ask Bubba what he knew about this and whether state funds were used for it.

And I hope someone with mad computer skills traces the account to someone in the athletic department.

duke79
04-26-2016, 02:47 PM
the thing is, the amended noa is the kind of thing that bilas should be screaming about, based on his past statements.

His whole shtick is based on the premise that the ncaa is just a moneymaking organization that doesn't care about the welfare of student athletes, and exploits them to serve its bottom line.

Well, here we have an institution that ran a "shadow curriculum" (wainstein's words) for nearly 20 years, and steered athletes (many of whom came from underprivileged backgrounds) into that curriculum not out of any desire to educate them -- indeed, the curriculum was neither designed to provide nor capable of providing any meaningful education -- but primarily to keep them eligible to play sports.

So what does the ncaa do? It takes football and men's basketball out of the noa. It bends over backwards to insulate the two biggest moneymaking programs -- and two biggest participants in the shadow curriculum -- from any significant sanctions.

The existence of the shadow curriculum, and its widespread use by football and men's basketball, was student-athlete exploitation at its finest. And the ncaa -- the organization that, according to jay bilas, should be doing more to protect student-athletes -- basically shrugs and says, "eh...nothing we can do about that."

if student-athletes are to be protected, it begins with holding the feet of the institutions who engage in this exploitation to the fire. But that's exactly the opposite of what the ncaa did here.

The result -- to quote mr. Bilas, "everyone's money is safe."

if jay truly means what he's been saying, he should not be cool with this.

amen !!

swood1000
04-26-2016, 02:49 PM
While I have no hope the NCAA will end up doing anything to vacate anything besides WBB records, the old structure is arguably better suited to deal with institutional malfeasance.

Point 19.5.2.1(d) in the old structure has addresses "institutional staff members" who "knowingly engaged in or condoned" the major violations. Those individuals would either need to be fired, suspended for at least a year, reassigned so the don't have any contact with SA, or other disciplinary action approved by the COI (this is from the 2010-11 manual). In the new manual they would need a show-cause order to accomplish the same thing which arguably has a higher burden. Well the ANOA has a very low burden on "knowingly engaged in or condoned". This is how the NCAA defines the LOIC charge:



So basically, anyone in the athletic department that was made aware of the AFAM course anomalies and did nothing may/should fall into this category (Roy's "clustering" comment might come in handy here). In the old NOA, this type of logic wasn't present and the only people in the athletics department really at risk were those that provided benefits, ASPSA counselors, and Boxill (ie those exposed in the LOIC charge was much narrower)

Will they do that...probably not (or more correctly there's nothing in the ANOA that would lead you to believe the COI will be this harsh...ie no names, no non-WBB sports, etc.), but the one thing that the new ANOA did do was provide a more logical argument to get to a place where the COI could do something like that to a whole host of people that wasn't as apparent in the old NOA as the LOIC just touched on Boxill, ASPSA, and the academic administration. Sure this is grasping at straws, but I still think something harsh in the probation, postseason ban, fine realm is still coming to them. While the NCAA ditched the micro argument they did buttress the bigger macro athletic department argument which gives them a tad more latitude.

But which staff member knowingly condoned which major violation? Let's review the violations that were charged. First is Boxill and WBB. Second is Crowder for refusing to be interviewed. Third is Nyang'oro for refusing to be interviewed. Fourth is the institution for (a) failing to monitor the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM), (b) failing to document the independent study classes and address their use by students, (c) failing the monitor the activities of Boxill. Fifth was the institution for lack of institutional control.

These are the major violations. We think there should be some more but this is what they charged. I don't know which institutional staff member they could charge with condoning these violations. We would need a charge of extra benefits or academic fraud in order to have something that could be condoned.

dukeENG2003
04-26-2016, 03:10 PM
amen !!

You assume that Bilas has the freedom from his employer to say so. They have no problem with him criticizing the NCAA, its a popular opinion. But saying UNC should be punished is damaging their product by damaging one of its premiere brands.

I for one am not a Bilas fan. I think he is tooting his own horn more with his criticism of the NCAA rather than pushing a "principled argument". But I understand people differ on that.

chrishoke
04-26-2016, 03:15 PM
amen !!

Bilas doesn't want the NCAA to lose $, he wants to redistribute it. And he would likely agree with the Cheat attorneys that it's up to the kids to take advantage of a free education

sammy3469
04-26-2016, 03:18 PM
But which staff member knowingly condoned which major violation? Let's review the violations that were charged. First is Boxill and WBB. Second is Crowder for refusing to be interviewed. Third is Nyang'oro for refusing to be interviewed. Fourth is the institution for (a) failing to monitor the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM), (b) failing to document the independent study classes and address their use by students, (c) failing the monitor the activities of Boxill. Fifth was the institution for lack of institutional control.

These are the major violations. We think there should be some more but this is what they charged. I don't know which institutional staff member they could charge with condoning these violations. We would need a charge of extra benefits or academic fraud in order to have something that could be condoned.

The fourth one isn't the institution failed to monitor ASPSA, but instead individuals in the athletic and academic departments. The enforcement staff left it vague to let the COI decide which individuals those are (I seriously doubt we see the exhibits anytime soon). Like I said previously the LOIC charge only included Boxill, ASPSA, and the academic side, so the NCAA expanded the scope to include athletic department individuals.

Let's use Bridger's infamous presentation to the football staff. Previously they only had her since she provided benefits to SAs and LOIC charge didn't include athletic staff (maybe they had football coaches on some other benefit angle, but I doubt it). Now, they could include all football staff in that presentation since they knew of the scheme, but did nothing.

Now whether the COI does anything with that difference is another matter, but they've essentially enlarged the LOIC logic to include the individuals in athletic department (not just ASPSA) being complicit.

Here's another thought on why the extra benefits disappeared. There's a footnote on Boxill's Allegation 1 noting that it meets the exception for the statue of limitations. That makes me wonder if there wasn't some ruling that said some of the other extra benefits fell outside the exception. That would help to explain why they disappeared. Having said that, I have no clue how Boxill's meet 19.5.11-(c), but the others wouldn't

BD80
04-26-2016, 03:56 PM
I'm ready to jump out a window...which is gonna look really silly since I have a one story house. But I guess making State fans look silly is the thing for the day.

Anyone that wants fairness and honor in sports just lost.

When you jump, be sure to flap your arms. I would.

Does this thread now belong on the off-topic board, its no longer a men's bball issue. Sylvia's ugly suits are bound to get stuck in the tires of ol' roy's bus.

swood1000
04-26-2016, 03:56 PM
The fourth one isn't the institution failed to monitor ASPSA, but instead individuals in the athletic and academic departments. The enforcement staff left it vague to let the COI decide which individuals those are (I seriously doubt we see the exhibits anytime soon). Like I said previously the LOIC charge only included Boxill, ASPSA, and the academic side, so the NCAA expanded the scope to include athletic department individuals.

Let's use Bridger's infamous presentation to the football staff. Previously they only had her since she provided benefits to SAs and LOIC charge didn't include athletic staff (maybe they had football coaches on some other benefit angle, but I doubt it). Now, they could include all football staff in that presentation since they knew of the scheme, but did nothing.

Now whether the COI does anything with that difference is another matter, but they've essentially enlarged the LOIC logic to include the individuals in athletic department (not just ASPSA) being complicit.

Here's another thought on why the extra benefits disappeared. There's a footnote on Boxill's Allegation 1 noting that it meets the exception for the statue of limitations. That makes me wonder if there wasn't some ruling that said some of the other extra benefits fell outside the exception. That would help to explain why they disappeared. Having said that, I have no clue how Boxill's meet 19.5.11-(c), but the others wouldn't
No, I think I disagree with you about the fourth allegation. Here's how that allegation starts:


It is alleged that from the 2005 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution violated the NCAA Principle of Rules Compliance when individuals in the athletics and academic administrations on campus, particularly in the college of arts and sciences, did not sufficiently monitor the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) and the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department.

So the charge is that the institution violated the Principle of Rules Compliance. The institution, of course, can do nothing apart from individuals. But it was a charge against the institution, not against the individuals. There is no reason, if they were going to charge individuals, that they would not have charged them here. The alternative would require coming back once again and amending the NOA to add those charges. Certainly they've had time to interview everybody and figure it all out. I don't think they're going on a fishing expedition and seeing who they can find to charge.

The statute of limitations goes back four years from 2011 but there is an exception for


(b) Allegations in a case in which information is developed to indicate a pattern of willful violations on the part of the institution or individual involved, which began before but continued into the four-year period
(c) Allegations that indicate a blatant disregard for the Association's fundamental recruiting, extra benefit, academic or ethical-conduct bylaws or that involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation. In such cases, the enforcement staff shall have a one-year period after the date information concerning the matter becomes available to the NCAA to investigate and submit to the institution a notice of allegations concerning the matter.

so there would be nothing preventing charging anything going back to 2007 at a minimum, even if they didn't find a pattern of willful violations or a blatant disregard for the the NCAA's fundamental extra-benefit and ethical-conduct bylaws, both of which they found in Boxill's case. This doesn't explain the complete absence of any charges.

BigWayne
04-26-2016, 04:00 PM
The fourth one isn't the institution failed to monitor ASPSA, but instead individuals in the athletic and academic departments. The enforcement staff left it vague to let the COI decide which individuals those are (I seriously doubt we see the exhibits anytime soon). Like I said previously the LOIC charge only included Boxill, ASPSA, and the academic side, so the NCAA expanded the scope to include athletic department individuals.

Let's use Bridger's infamous presentation to the football staff. Previously they only had her since she provided benefits to SAs and LOIC charge didn't include athletic staff (maybe they had football coaches on some other benefit angle, but I doubt it). Now, they could include all football staff in that presentation since they knew of the scheme, but did nothing.

Now whether the COI does anything with that difference is another matter, but they've essentially enlarged the LOIC logic to include the individuals in athletic department (not just ASPSA) being complicit.

Here's another thought on why the extra benefits disappeared. There's a footnote on Boxill's Allegation 1 noting that it meets the exception for the statue of limitations. That makes me wonder if there wasn't some ruling that said some of the other extra benefits fell outside the exception. That would help to explain why they disappeared. Having said that, I have no clue how Boxill's meet 19.5.11-(c), but the others wouldn't

I am cautiously optimistic that the contents of the supporting documents for #4 will be used to calculate punishments. #4 and #5 are, after all, level 1 allegations. They have to have real evidence to back that up.

Indoor66
04-26-2016, 05:30 PM
Maybe we will all be shocked by the decisions of the COI!

SamHouston
04-26-2016, 05:45 PM
I am picturing Roy Williams across the table from William Friday at Heaven's Gate. What will Roy Williams say when Dr. Friday asks, "Roy, tell me about the paper classes" This may well be Coach Williams ultimate concern.

plimnko
04-26-2016, 05:51 PM
I am picturing Roy Williams across the table from William Friday at Heaven's Gate. What will Roy Williams say when Dr. Friday asks, "Roy, tell me about the paper classes" This may well be Coach Williams ultimate concern.

i'm sure he'll just lie again. that's what cheaters do.

devildeac
04-26-2016, 05:59 PM
I am picturing Roy Williams across the table from William Friday at Heaven's Gate. What will Roy Williams say when Dr. Friday asks, "Roy, tell me about the paper classes" This may well be Coach Williams ultimate concern.

Heaven's gate? roy williams?

Nah, you reeaally didn't put those in the same sentence, did you?

:rolleyes:

SMO
04-26-2016, 05:59 PM
If Sylvia gets the ax any chance she has a Title IX case against UNC?

BD80
04-26-2016, 06:08 PM
i'm sure he'll just lie again. that's what cheaters do.

Is it a lie if you have convinced yourself it is the truth?

Tom B.
04-26-2016, 06:29 PM
Is it a lie if you have convinced yourself it is the truth?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

LastRowFan
04-26-2016, 07:00 PM
I'll echo OF's thoughts and most of the posters here. I've tried to become educated on this issue over the last 12-18 months and thought I had done a reasonably good job with that. I've even tried to accomplish that by separating my hatred for all things tarh**lian (yea, riiight :o) from a data analysis task and believed I had done a reasonable job at that, too. Then, considering the apparent overwhelming evidence presented, the original 59 page NOA with ~730 pages of exhibits, five level 1 violations (including LOIC), admission of academic fraud to SACS, other punishments over the last few years for "similar" offenses, I believed the ncaa had their chance to severely punish unc/make an example of them/(re)establish a higher standard for the SA and show what the governing body was established for. But, was I ever wrong. However, I did learn a new word in the process: feckless. I also learned a valuable lesson: spend a lot less time on the internet. And, I hope to have a delicious dinner tonight after I make a few phone calls or stops at The Fresh Market/Harris Teeter/Trader Joe's or EarthFare on the way home tonight to see if any of those stores carry this in their fresh (or frozen) food sections.

6316

I've heard this is excellent with an imperial stout.

:o
I have a nice Green Man IPA here for you DevilDeac, in my new go to pint glass:
6321
Misery loves company.

devildeac
04-26-2016, 07:28 PM
I have a nice Green Man IPA here for you DevilDeac, in my new go to pint glass:
6321
Misery loves company.

Accepted. I'll hoist a couple snifters of imperial stouts for you tonight, too.

JStuart
04-26-2016, 07:37 PM
I have a nice Green Man IPA here for you DevilDeac, in my new go to pint glass:
6321
Misery loves company.

Just what I've been quaffing tonight; just not in such a good glass.

jv001
04-26-2016, 08:15 PM
I am picturing Roy Williams across the table from William Friday at Heaven's Gate. What will Roy Williams say when Dr. Friday asks, "Roy, tell me about the paper classes" This may well be Coach Williams ultimate concern.

The Bible says you're never more like the devil when you lie. It also says satan is the father of lies. So, old roy will have good company. GoDuke!

Newton_14
04-26-2016, 08:55 PM
It's over. Agree the thread should just close or move to Off Topic. There won't be a single penalty for mens basketball or football. No post-season ban, no scholarship reduction, not even probation. All this was for naught. How the NCAA can't punish the revenue sports for the paperclasses but can somehow punish the women's team for it is beyond me, but either way, that's it. Their only punishment ended up being a National Laughing Stock, and losing out on recruits for a couple of seasons. ol cheatin roy the biggest fraud and fake of a human being God has ever put on this earth will be landing 5 Star Studs again before this Spring Recruiting period ends. He will probably sign a couple of the unsigned 5 stars for 2016 making next seasons team a threat again. By next season his cupboard will be fully stocked again. Recruits now know they can go to unc, not have to do any real schoolwork, get a fake diagnosis for a learning disability to boot, and a fancy car to drive at no charge, and probably an endorsement contract or two advertising designer mouthguards. Why would they want to go anywhere else?

Worst of all for me is I now have to take a uncgrad manager at my work out to lunch thanks to losing the bet that mens hoops would not be touched at all. He knew that back in January by the way. Wonder how?

Kedsy
04-26-2016, 10:09 PM
Worst of all for me is I now have to take a uncgrad manager at my work out to lunch thanks to losing the bet that mens hoops would not be touched at all. He knew that back in January by the way. Wonder how?

If I were you, I'd wait until the penalties are handed down before I surrendered. I don't think this drama is over yet.

jipops
04-26-2016, 11:24 PM
If I were you, I'd wait until the penalties are handed down before I surrendered. I don't think this drama is over yet.

You thinkin' Kris Jenkins might come around again?

SilkyJ
04-26-2016, 11:40 PM
If I were you, I'd wait until the penalties are handed down before I surrendered. I don't think this drama is over yet.

I am obviously a believer they will get a wrist slap, but I'm surprised everyone that was so firmly in the "strong punishment" camp is now giving up. What's changed from a year ago?

MarkD83
04-27-2016, 12:49 AM
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.

Doria
04-27-2016, 03:38 AM
If I were you, I'd wait until the penalties are handed down before I surrendered. I don't think this drama is over yet.

Yeah, I'm in the camp wrist slap, unfortunately, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a year or so probation across all the athletic programs. Or something like that, for the LOIC. I mean, it'd be a farce, but you could at least win the bet on a technicality(ish) at the buzzer.

MChambers
04-27-2016, 06:27 AM
I am obviously a believer they will get a wrist slap, but I'm surprised everyone that was so firmly in the "strong punishment" camp is now giving up. What's changed from a year ago?
As one article put it, there are 11 words that are missing from the amended NOA: "particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball, and women's basketball". Really looks like men's basketball is going to get off, even though that was the athletic program that benefited the most from fake classes, both in volume and durationi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/27/sports/ncaabasketball/north-carolina-ncaa-academic-scandal.html?_r=0

devildeac
04-27-2016, 08:03 AM
I am obviously a believer they will get a wrist slap, but I'm surprised everyone that was so firmly in the "strong punishment" camp is now giving up. What's changed from a year ago?

I think it's the removal of cheaters basketball and FB from the original NOA (ONOA), though the FI (Factual Information) has yet to be [redacted] released. That's apparently the ~700 pages of exhibits/additional evidence that accompanied the ONOA and is still supposed to be part of the ANOA. There's some discussion that the LOIC charge (Level 1 violation #5 perhaps-I have trouble keeping score of all their misdeeds :o) and other parts of the ANOA are less specific/more broad now so as to be much more encompassing for the athletic department now and (theoretically) allows the COI much more leeway with their (possible) punishments in several months. I've flipped now from my "they'll be punished severely" to "they'll be some minor punishments" that they'll continue to bitch and moan about but they'll keep all their ill-gotten tapestries and be right back to their cheating ways in 2017 or sooner.

devildeac
04-27-2016, 08:05 AM
It's over. Agree the thread should just close or move to Off Topic. There won't be a single penalty for mens basketball or football. No post-season ban, no scholarship reduction, not even probation. All this was for naught. How the NCAA can't punish the revenue sports for the paperclasses but can somehow punish the women's team for it is beyond me, but either way, that's it. Their only punishment ended up being a National Laughing Stock, and losing out on recruits for a couple of seasons. ol cheatin roy the biggest fraud and fake of a human being God has ever put on this earth will be landing 5 Star Studs again before this Spring Recruiting period ends. He will probably sign a couple of the unsigned 5 stars for 2016 making next seasons team a threat again. By next season his cupboard will be fully stocked again. Recruits now know they can go to unc, not have to do any real schoolwork, get a fake diagnosis for a learning disability to boot, and a fancy car to drive at no charge, and probably an endorsement contract or two advertising designer mouthguards. Why would they want to go anywhere else?

Worst of all for me is I now have to take a uncgrad manager at my work out to lunch thanks to losing the bet that mens hoops would not be touched at all. He knew that back in January by the way. Wonder how?

I wouldn't buy the cheater lunch just yet. I'd tell him/her you talked to your lawyers and they advised you to wait another 6-8 months because you found some additional (cough) evidence. :rolleyes:

BLPOG
04-27-2016, 08:52 AM
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.

Why would asking a huge, public bureaucracy with questionable competence or integrity and misaligned incentives to oversee a large, private bureaucracy with questionable competence or integrity and misaligned incentives be expected to improve matters?

I'm not trying to make a dig at you in particular and certainly many people share that kind of response, but all of these sorts of petitions strike me as infantile. The federal government has nothing to do with the athletics side of this case and the idea that they could or would bring about a satisfying resolution if only we asked is what I would call an appeal to a unicorn.

Inasmuch as they would have a role it would probably be limited to fraud regarding student aid and possibly the distribution of research grants. Supposedly the Department of Education is conducting a review, but we'll just have to wait to see how that plays out.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 09:21 AM
It's over. Agree the thread should just close or move to Off Topic. There won't be a single penalty for mens basketball or football. No post-season ban, no scholarship reduction, not even probation. All this was for naught. How the NCAA can't punish the revenue sports for the paperclasses but can somehow punish the women's team for it is beyond me, but either way, that's it. Their only punishment ended up being a National Laughing Stock, and losing out on recruits for a couple of seasons. ol cheatin roy the biggest fraud and fake of a human being God has ever put on this earth will be landing 5 Star Studs again before this Spring Recruiting period ends. He will probably sign a couple of the unsigned 5 stars for 2016 making next seasons team a threat again. By next season his cupboard will be fully stocked again. Recruits now know they can go to unc, not have to do any real schoolwork, get a fake diagnosis for a learning disability to boot, and a fancy car to drive at no charge, and probably an endorsement contract or two advertising designer mouthguards. Why would they want to go anywhere else?

Worst of all for me is I now have to take a uncgrad manager at my work out to lunch thanks to losing the bet that mens hoops would not be touched at all. He knew that back in January by the way. Wonder how?
I think you should hold off on the lunch until the punishment is announced. The university was charged with two level I (severe breach of conduct) infractions with four aggravating factors:


(1) Multiple Level I violations. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(a)] The notice of allegations includes multiple Level I violations involving unethical conduct, failure to monitor and a lack of institutional control.

(2) A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual [Bylaw 19.9.3-(b)]. They include:
• March 12, 2012 – Violations of NCAA legislation regarding academic fraud, impermissible benefits, impermissible participation, unethical conduct, failure to monitor, preferential treatment, failure to cooperate and failure to report outside income.




• January 10, 1961 – Violations of NCAA legislation involving improper entertainment and lodging and improper recruiting entertainment.

(3) Lack of institutional control. [Bylaw 19.9.3-(c)] As described in Allegation Nos. 4 and 5, the institution failed to monitor and demonstrated a lack of institutional control.

(4) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct. [NCAA Bylaw 19.9.3-(h)]
• Jan Boxill (Boxill), then philosophy instructor, director of the Parr Center for Ethics, women's basketball athletics academic counselor in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes ASPSA and chair of the faculty, abused her position as a faculty member by providing impermissible academic assistance.


There was one mitigating factor:


An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations [Bylaw 19.9.4-(d)]. They include:
• The institution reported approximately 95 Level III/secondary self-reports over the last four years.



Also keep in mind that under the current rules for just one Level I aggravated violation the COI panel may not give a penalty less than a two year post-season ban, along with scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions:

6322 6323

We are all disappointed but I don't think that the correct conclusion is that UNC got off because they are UNC. If there had been evidence that a Boxill was helping the MBB players then MBB would have been slammed but Roy and his crew know better than to leave a trail and the guns they found were just not smoking. The treatment of the paper classes was the same as the treatment of similar events at Auburn and U. of Michigan. I imagine that there were factions within the NCAA who argued that this should not be the policy, and that, for example, there have been previous cases where non-athletes also benefited but that the benefit went so disproportionately to the athletes that they called it extra benefits. No doubt they made the call that the disproportion in this case was not great enough. If there was an element of kid gloves for UNC it would have shown itself in such a call. Maybe there was. I think the NCAA owes us a full explanation after coming out with that original NOA and then dropping allegation 1.

But keep in mind that one of the allegations was a lack of institutional control, which is the granddaddy of infractions. If they are found guilty of that I see no reason to expect anything other than a penalty in line with what we see in the charts (even though they will be using pre-chart penalties). It's not what we think is called for, but it's not nothing and I think that one MBB penalty is going to be a post-season ban of at least two years. Don't know if that would be "not touched at all" according to your bet but it will not be well-received by recruits.

sammy3469
04-27-2016, 09:37 AM
But keep in mind that one of the allegations was a lack of institutional control, which is the granddaddy of infractions. If they are found guilty of that I see no reason to expect anything other than a penalty in line with what we see in the charts (even though they will be using pre-chart penalties). It's not what we think is called for, but it's not nothing and I think that one MBB penalty is going to be a post-season ban of at least two years. Don't know if that would be "not touched at all" according to your bet but it will not be well-received by recruits.

Just to echo this, Here's a link to the 2010-11 manual which is going to be the manual used in this case: http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/2010%202011%20NCAA%20DI%20Manual.pdf

Pages 322 have the penalty structure.

BTW, here's an utterly stupid question (in that I know the answer, but just want to point out he got intimately involved at some point)....why is John Swofford cc:ed on the ANOA? He wasn't on the original.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 09:47 AM
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.

I don't think that the federal government is the poster child for the disinterested organization taking evenhanded action uninfluenced by political consideration, nor are federal bureaucracies universally celebrated for their efficiency or for having objectives in line with popular will.

moonpie23
04-27-2016, 09:52 AM
Swafford + Holt + Emmert + Skipper



deal? or no deal?

sagegrouse
04-27-2016, 09:53 AM
Just to echo this, Here's a link to the 2010-11 manual which is going to be the manual used in this case: http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/2010%202011%20NCAA%20DI%20Manual.pdf

Pages 322 have the penalty structure.

BTW, here's an utterly stupid question (in that I know the answer, but just want to point out he got intimately involved at some point)...why is John Swofford cc:ed on the ANOA? He wasn't on the original.

I suppose this is an answer: Whether he was on the original or not, the conferences have an interest in any penalties or violations by their members, inasmuch as they may already be in the process of disciplining the school, or may choose to do so based on the NCAA findings.

Kindly,
Sage
'I don't get upset with Swofford's UNC ties -- often the commissioner has been a Duke guy. Also, every broadcasting crew in college hoops seems to have a Duke grad on the team -- sometimes two, when JWill and Bilas are at a game. How would we feel if the position was reversed?'

'BTW Swofford earns a couple of mill per year to be even-handed. Why would he put those easily earned millions at risk?'

MarkD83
04-27-2016, 10:05 AM
Why would asking a huge, public bureaucracy with questionable competence or integrity and misaligned incentives to oversee a large, private bureaucracy with questionable competence or integrity and misaligned incentives be expected to improve matters?

I'm not trying to make a dig at you in particular and certainly many people share that kind of response, but all of these sorts of petitions strike me as infantile. The federal government has nothing to do with the athletics side of this case and the idea that they could or would bring about a satisfying resolution if only we asked is what I would call an appeal to a unicorn.

Inasmuch as they would have a role it would probably be limited to fraud regarding student aid and possibly the distribution of research grants. Supposedly the Department of Education is conducting a review, but we'll just have to wait to see how that plays out.

No offense taken. Most of my note was just to blow off steam, so it is not totally thought out but my motivation was three- fold.

1) A university may be able to intimidate the NCAA but the federal government is full of folks that are beyond being intimidated.
2) Any attempt to get a favorable decision by keeping the venue in state (UNC friendly courts) is harder with federal oversight. This is sort of similar to number 1. If UNC threatened the NCAA with litigation and the NCAA were part of the DOE, the DOE would say take a hike you can't sue us.
3) Finally and most importantly, there is no such thing as non-cooperation with the feds. If Prof N and Crowder don't want to talk, well here is your subpoena and you will set in jail until you talk. My take away from the UNC fiasco is that the NCAA can't do anything if everyone shuts up. So the next time a school gets in trouble just put a gag order out and the NCAA has no way of gathering any evidence to do anything against you.

Your last comments is what intrigues me the most. The DOE does already have a role to play which is to produce a review of Pell Grants at UNC. This then goes to SACS. However, right now the NCAA also makes rulings about player eligibility which affects who gets grants in aid. The NCAA just made a tacit ruling that all UNC Men's basketball players before 2005 were eligible academically and therefore can get grants in aid. Why should they make that decision? They are not supposed to rule one way or the other about "academics" this is the jurisdiction of SACS and the DOE, so put the NCAA under the DOE and let the eligibility for grants in aid have only one group making the decision.

I do agree with your "appeal to a unicorn" idea but I also think about steroids in baseball. Nothing was done until players started to appear before congress. The NCAA has shown that they are an investigative agency without the capability to investigate and possible an enforcement agency that can't enforce much.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 10:06 AM
Just to echo this, Here's a link to the 2010-11 manual which is going to be the manual used in this case: http://www.desu.edu/sites/default/files/2010%202011%20NCAA%20DI%20Manual.pdf

Pages 322 have the penalty structure.

BTW, here's an utterly stupid question (in that I know the answer, but just want to point out he got intimately involved at some point)...why is John Swofford cc:ed on the ANOA? He wasn't on the original.
These rules include the same penalties as those shown in the current charts, and call for a postseason ban particularly in those cases in which the violation(s) reflect a lack of institutional control. They just don't give a minimum number of years, as the current rules do. I also wonder how they would choose the sport(s) that will be banned from postseason competition. That's the thing that leaves me with a little bit of an uneasy feeling.

Newton_14
04-27-2016, 10:08 AM
I wouldn't buy the cheater lunch just yet. I'd tell him/her you talked to your lawyers and they advised you to wait another 6-8 months because you found some additional (cough) evidence. :rolleyes:
I took the advice of you and Kedsy and did just that. I actually said exactly what you wrote. :) Great minds and all that...

swood1000
04-27-2016, 10:16 AM
No offense taken. Most of my note was just to blow off steam, so it is not totally thought out but my motivation was three- fold.

1) A university may be able to intimidate the NCAA but the federal government is full of folks that are beyond being intimidated.
2) Any attempt to get a favorable decision by keeping the venue in state (UNC friendly courts) is harder with federal oversight. This is sort of similar to number 1. If UNC threatened the NCAA with litigation and the NCAA were part of the DOE, the DOE would say take a hike you can't sue us.
3) Finally and most importantly, there is no such thing as non-cooperation with the feds. If Prof N and Crowder don't want to talk, well here is your subpoena and you will set in jail until you talk. My take away from the UNC fiasco is that the NCAA can't do anything if everyone shuts up. So the next time a school gets in trouble just put a gag order out and the NCAA has no way of gathering any evidence to do anything against you.

Your last comments is what intrigues me the most. The DOE does already have a role to play which is to produce a review of Pell Grants at UNC. This then goes to SACS. However, right now the NCAA also makes rulings about player eligibility which affects who gets grants in aid. The NCAA just made a tacit ruling that all UNC Men's basketball players before 2005 were eligible academically and therefore can get grants in aid. Why should they make that decision? They are not supposed to rule one way or the other about "academics" this is the jurisdiction of SACS and the DOE, so put the NCAA under the DOE and let the eligibility for grants in aid have only one group making the decision.

I do agree with your "appeal to a unicorn" idea but I also think about steroids in baseball. Nothing was done until players started to appear before congress. The NCAA has shown that they are an investigative agency without the capability to investigate and possible an enforcement agency that can't enforce much.
The NCAA is saying that if there is a class that doesn't teach anything or that is too easy but that is available to athletes and non-athletes alike then that is not a violation of their rules and that there already is an organization whose job it is to police exactly that issue (SACS). What rule would you have the NCAA adopt instead of this one? Keep in mind that Division I schools having the lowest entrance requirements no doubt have many classes whose requirements, compared to those of Duke classes, are so minimal that the class would seem fake or fraudulent to a Duke student.

sagegrouse
04-27-2016, 10:21 AM
No offense taken. Most of my note was just to blow off steam, so it is not totally thought out but my motivation was three- fold.

1) A university may be able to intimidate the NCAA but the federal government is full of folks that are beyond being intimidated.
2) Any attempt to get a favorable decision by keeping the venue in state (UNC friendly courts) is harder with federal oversight. This is sort of similar to number 1. If UNC threatened the NCAA with litigation and the NCAA were part of the DOE, the DOE would say take a hike you can't sue us.
3) Finally and most importantly, there is no such thing as non-cooperation with the feds. If Prof N and Crowder don't want to talk, well here is your subpoena and you will set in jail until you talk. My take away from the UNC fiasco is that the NCAA can't do anything if everyone shuts up. So the next time a school gets in trouble just put a gag order out and the NCAA has no way of gathering any evidence to do anything against you.

Your last comments is what intrigues me the most. The DOE does already have a role to play which is to produce a review of Pell Grants at UNC. This then goes to SACS. However, right now the NCAA also makes rulings about player eligibility which affects who gets grants in aid. The NCAA just made a tacit ruling that all UNC Men's basketball players before 2005 were eligible academically and therefore can get grants in aid. Why should they make that decision? They are not supposed to rule one way or the other about "academics" this is the jurisdiction of SACS and the DOE, so put the NCAA under the DOE and let the eligibility for grants in aid have only one group making the decision.

I do agree with your "appeal to a unicorn" idea but I also think about steroids in baseball. Nothing was done until players started to appear before congress. The NCAA has shown that they are an investigative agency without the capability to investigate and possible an enforcement agency that can't enforce much.

The NCAA does have a "hammer." If you ever want to work in sports at an NCAA school you need to cooperate with an ongoing investigation. Crowder and Nyang'oro, of course, were and are immune to such threats.

BTW, while I agree with your statements about the federal government, DOE is "Energy" -- ED is the official abbreviation for "Education," although DoED is often used.

devildeac
04-27-2016, 10:49 AM
I took the advice of you and Kedsy and did just that. I actually said exactly what you wrote. :) Great minds and all that...

You're welcome. What are friends for? You can buy me a doughnut ( http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?37870-Doughnuts-what-s-your-opinion&p=883311#post883311) at the first tailgate this fall ;) .

PackMan97
04-27-2016, 11:19 AM
SACS has already policed the situation and said UNC was engaged in academic fraud. I don't udnerstand why the NCAA won't punish UNC-CH based on those findings?

It seems simple enough. Use SACS to drop the hammer. What I am missing here?

NashvilleDevil
04-27-2016, 11:34 AM
It's over. Agree the thread should just close or move to Off Topic. There won't be a single penalty for mens basketball or football. No post-season ban, no scholarship reduction, not even probation. All this was for naught. How the NCAA can't punish the revenue sports for the paperclasses but can somehow punish the women's team for it is beyond me, but either way, that's it. Their only punishment ended up being a National Laughing Stock, and losing out on recruits for a couple of seasons. ol cheatin roy the biggest fraud and fake of a human being God has ever put on this earth will be landing 5 Star Studs again before this Spring Recruiting period ends. He will probably sign a couple of the unsigned 5 stars for 2016 making next seasons team a threat again. By next season his cupboard will be fully stocked again. Recruits now know they can go to unc, not have to do any real schoolwork, get a fake diagnosis for a learning disability to boot, and a fancy car to drive at no charge, and probably an endorsement contract or two advertising designer mouthguards. Why would they want to go anywhere else?

Worst of all for me is I now have to take a uncgrad manager at my work out to lunch thanks to losing the bet that mens hoops would not be touched at all. He knew that back in January by the way. Wonder how?

I think the bold is being said part in jest and part seriously. It is worth noting that before the cloud of scandal hung over Chapel Hill, Roy was not really churning out the OAD kids. So even though MBB is going to skate it does not change the fact that Roy has not nurtured OAD talent like K, Calipari, Self, and Miller.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 11:57 AM
SACS has already policed the situation and said UNC was engaged in academic fraud. I don't udnerstand why the NCAA won't punish UNC-CH based on those findings?

It seems simple enough. Use SACS to drop the hammer. What I am missing here?
SACS and the NCAA have different offenses. The SACS offense is deficient academics. The NCAA offense is athletes being treated better than the other students at that school.

Nugget
04-27-2016, 12:00 PM
SACS has already policed the situation and said UNC was engaged in academic fraud. I don't udnerstand why the NCAA won't punish UNC-CH based on those findings?

It seems simple enough. Use SACS to drop the hammer. What I am missing here?

See Swood's post above (and really, Jay Bilas' point that there is a meaningful difference for NCAA purposes between "easy" classes and "fake" classes). For NCAA purposes you need a link tying the "academic fraud" specifically to some sort of special treatment for athletes not available to the entire student body. As Swood notes, apparently UNC's lawyers convinced the NCAA enforcement staff that the mere statistical disproportion with which athletes were in the "anomalous" classes was not enough to support the conclusion of impermissible benefits for athletes -- while it seems fairly obvious that this had to have been designed primarily to help athletes and it can't be an accident that 25% of the students in these classes over the years were athletes, they must have decided that isn't enough in this circumstance to support an "extra benefits" conclusion: you'd have needed something like emails from Crowder or other athletics support staff interceding to get athletes into classes that were otherwise closed. Although, I really don't see how the football power point presentation doesn't get you there.

It's absurd, but I guess in the NCAA's mind, it's their business when tutors at Minnesota or Georgia or Syracuse write papers for the players to help them pass a normal class (or when Boxil does it for WBB player), but it's not when the head of a department allows the entire department to be corrupted by dumbing down the classes for "everyone" (and it just so happens that the dumbed down class has enrollment by athletes at 5x their rate among the study body).

I'm still mystified, however, at how Rashad McCants wasn't ineligible, since it appears that, regardless of whether the individual "classes" themselves were or were not "fake" (or merely "easy"), his enrollment in 3 independent studies "classes" in the spring of 2005 clearly looks to have violated the 2003 policy.

Skitzle
04-27-2016, 12:19 PM
SACS has already policed the situation and said UNC was engaged in academic fraud. I don't udnerstand why the NCAA won't punish UNC-CH based on those findings?

It seems simple enough. Use SACS to drop the hammer. What I am missing here?

They are punishing UNC. The women's basketball team was the main beneficiary of the academic fraud.

Speaking of Frauds... how bout that NCAA?

Ima Facultiwyfe
04-27-2016, 12:57 PM
There is a part of me taking a bit of satisfaction in the fact that the cheats skated. Had they taken their lumps, the matter would be over sooner or later. This way, as the song says, "This is the song that never ends. For it goes on and on, my friends. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because ..... this is the song that never ends. For it goes on and on, my friends etc etc etc etc etc........"

In my mind, the rivalry is over. Nobody talks about the Duke/UNC connection much anymore. It's all about Duke/Kentucky. While I wish it were more about Duke/Stanford, I'll take it.

Love, Ima

swood1000
04-27-2016, 01:01 PM
http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by PackMan97 http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=883329#post883329)
SACS has already policed the situation and said UNC was engaged in academic fraud. I don't udnerstand why the NCAA won't punish UNC-CH based on those findings?

It seems simple enough. Use SACS to drop the hammer. What I am missing here?


SACS and the NCAA have different offenses. The SACS offense is deficient academics. The NCAA offense is athletes being treated better than the other students at that school.

There is another NCAA offense besides extra benefits:


10.1 Unethical Conduct. Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:
(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete;



The trouble is that the NCAA has said that they will defer to the university as to whether the action constitutes a violation of institutional academic integrity policy. Perhaps we could make some headway if they added "or the action is determined by the university's accrediting body to constitute a violation of academic integrity." But I'm not sure whether that would give is the result we're looking for. SACS looks for academic deficiencies but maybe doesn't have a focus on academic fraud. And the fraud prohibited by the NCAA appears really to be an act that gives an advantage to a student-athlete but which is not given to non-athletes.

This page (http://oira.unc.edu/accreditation/communications-with-sacscoc/) lists all the correspondence to and from SACS. There was a November 13, 2014 letter (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2014/11/UNC-Chapel-Hill.pdf) from SACS after the Wainstein Report was released in which SACS was mad as a hornet. They list a number of their standards with which they said that UNC was not in compliance. I'm not sure which one we could point to as demonstrating that there was a violation of NCAA By-law 10.1 (b).

Edit: one difficulty is that SACS doesn't allege that the violations of their standards involved specific student-athletes, so which banners come down? It looks like something that just adds to lack of institutional control.

jv001
04-27-2016, 01:17 PM
After the NCAA awards uncheat medals and trophies for their work in the classroom, we can safely say that their student athletes are the dumbest in the country. The cheat fans can pat their chests and say they got away with it, but a dark cloud will always hang over the university. I don't want to ever, ever, ever hear Academic All American and a cheat players name mentioned. How do we know they even go to class. GoDuke!

Trinity_93
04-27-2016, 01:23 PM
BTW, here's an utterly stupid question (in that I know the answer, but just want to point out he got intimately involved at some point)...why is John Swofford cc:ed on the ANOA? He wasn't on the original.

He was the editor.

gumbomoop
04-27-2016, 01:27 PM
The university was charged with two level I (severe breach of conduct) infractions with four aggravating factors.

Also keep in mind that under the current rules for just one Level I aggravated violation the COI panel may not give a penalty less than a two year post-season ban, along with scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions.

Keep in mind that one of the allegations was a lack of institutional control, which is the granddaddy of infractions. If they are found guilty of that...

Although I am more interested in what SACS has to say, I won't pretend that I have ignored the NCAA/NOA issues. The issue of the banners does not haunt me, though I will be dumbfounded if MBB avoids any penalties whatsoever. That would be several levels beyond laughable. (Not as disappointed as I would be if SACS allows Folt to skate, but never mind that.)

I have tried to follow the many fascinating posts on what the NCAA might be thinking, the logic of this path or that, possible sanctions, etc. Among the most informative have been swood1000's numerous authoritative posts. So here I request some clarification from swood1000, a sort of crossing Ts and dotting Is, to make sure that I understand the crucial assertions in the above tag quote and the apparently -- but perhaps not -- obvious connections among these assertions. I ask for clarification because many observers must now assume that if there is even the slightest bit of wiggle room in the NCAA's own published standards (??), that UNC's -- or at least and more particularly MBB's -- violations would somehow be found "not proved."

1. Is a "Level 1 severe breach of conduct infraction" exactly the same as as a "Level 1 aggravated violation"? That is, are those phrases interchangeable?

2. If yes, is it logically and literally impossible ["may not"] for the COI to sanction MBB with anything "less than a two year post-season ban, along with scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions"? [Wait. See #3 through 6 below.]

3. The phrase "If they" in the third paragraph of the tag quote: (a) Who are "they"? (b) What body decides "if" they are guilty? (c) And if some entity/they is/are in fact found guilty of LOIC, does that necessarily, automatically, without any question whatsoever result in serious punishment for MBB?

4. Being suspicious, I suspect there might be some wiggle room -- though it would have to be large enough enough to accommodate the MBB bus, even after it has sideswiped the WBB bus -- in a charge against "the university," if MBB is nowhere specificaly charged. Thus, in my question #3 and your para #3, if "they" refers not specifically to MBB, why would those serious sanctions in your para #2 be applied to MBB?

5. That is, ok, if the COI levies any sanctions on MBB, the sanctions must be, minimally, those listed in your para 2. But is there any possible circumstance in which the COI levels no sanctions against MBB?

6. Or, as you say ...


I also wonder how they would choose the sport(s) that will be banned from postseason competition. That's the thing that leaves me with a little bit of an uneasy feeling.

hallcity
04-27-2016, 01:37 PM
There is another NCAA offense besides extra benefits:




The trouble is that the NCAA has said that they will defer to the university as to whether the action constitutes a violation of institutional academic integrity policy. Perhaps we could make some headway if they added "or the action is determined by the university's accrediting body to constitute a violation of academic integrity." But I'm not sure whether that would give is the result we're looking for. SACS looks for academic deficiencies but maybe doesn't have a focus on academic fraud. And the fraud prohibited by the NCAA appears really to be an act that gives an advantage to a student-athlete but which is not given to non-athletes.

This page (http://oira.unc.edu/accreditation/communications-with-sacscoc/) lists all the correspondence to and from SACS. There was a November 13, 2014 letter (http://oira.unc.edu/files/2014/11/UNC-Chapel-Hill.pdf) from SACS after the Wainstein Report was released in which SACS was mad as a hornet. They list a number of their standards with which they said that UNC was not in compliance. I'm not sure which one we could point to as demonstrating that there was a violation of NCAA By-law 10.1 (b).

Edit: one difficulty is that SACS doesn't allege that the violations of their standards involved specific student-athletes, so which banners come down? It looks like something that just adds to lack of institutional control.

What I don't understand is how UNC gets around the bifurcated classes being an impermissible benefits. These were set up as lecture classes. Regular students had to go to the lectures, write papers, take exams, etc. However, for student athletes these were treated as "independent study" courses with almost nothing required of the student athlete. Were any non-athletes allowed to do these courses as "independent study" with almost all course requirements waived? If there weren't non-athletes in the "independent study" how can this not be an impermissible benefit?

For that matter how can you say that there was a loss of institutional control because athletes were "exposed" to phony classes when you're unwilling to say the classes were actually phony?

Doria
04-27-2016, 01:54 PM
What I don't understand is how UNC gets around the bifurcated classes being an impermissible benefits. These were set up as lecture classes. Regular students had to go to the lectures, write papers, take exams, etc. However, for student athletes these were treated as "independent study" courses with almost nothing required of the student athlete. Were any non-athletes allowed to do these courses as "independent study" with almost all course requirements waived? If there weren't non-athletes in the "independent study" how can this not be an impermissible benefit?

For that matter how can you say that there was a loss of institutional control because athletes were "exposed" to phony classes when you're unwilling to say the classes were actually phony?

I had thought that non-athletes were indeed allowed to do these "courses" with the exact same (non)requirements as athletes. Am I wrong in this takeaway?

BigWayne
04-27-2016, 02:02 PM
For that matter how can you say that there was a loss of institutional control because athletes were "exposed" to phony classes when you're unwilling to say the classes were actually phony?

We have to see what is in the FI/supporting documents. Of course anything good will be redacted, but at least we will see what the documents are, i.e. transcripts, emails, etc. It's not over yet. Despite the watered down NOA language, UNC has still been charged with 5 level 1 allegations, including LOIC. Not withstanding the recent troll fiasco, I would not be surprised if some of the NOA changes are to make the document easier to defend legally. Until we see the supporting docs and even the COI punishments, we won't really know what's going on.

DukePA
04-27-2016, 02:03 PM
There is a part of me taking a bit of satisfaction in the fact that the cheats skated. Had they taken their lumps, the matter would be over sooner or later. This way, as the song says, "This is the song that never ends. For it goes on and on, my friends. Some people started singing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because .... this is the song that never ends. For it goes on and on, my friends etc etc etc etc etc...."

In my mind, the rivalry is over. Nobody talks about the Duke/UNC connection much anymore. It's all about Duke/Kentucky. While I wish it were more about Duke/Stanford, I'll take it.

Love, Ima

Amen. They have not been our rivals since 1988. As far as I'm concerned, let them keep the victory bell. It is worthless.

Jarhead
04-27-2016, 02:10 PM
We have to see what is in the FI/supporting documents. Of course anything good will be redacted, but at least we will see what the documents are, i.e. transcripts, emails, etc. It's not over yet. Despite the watered down NOA language, UNC has still been charged with 5 level 1 allegations, including LOIC. Not withstanding the recent troll fiasco, I would not be surprised if some of the NOA changes are to make the document easier to defend legally. Until we see the supporting docs and even the COI punishments, we won't really know what's going on.

Please remember this -- the COI will be the source of any hammer blows. They are just getting the ANOA along with supporting documents, and it won't be a redacted version. I vaguely recall that they have 90 days to swing that hammer. Let's wait and see, huh.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 02:21 PM
Although I am more interested in what SACS has to say, I won't pretend that I have ignored the NCAA/NOA issues. The issue of the banners does not haunt me, though I will be dumbfounded if MBB avoids any penalties whatsoever. That would be several levels beyond laughable. (Not as disappointed as I would be if SACS allows Folt to skate, but never mind that.)

I have tried to follow the many fascinating posts on what the NCAA might be thinking, the logic of this path or that, possible sanctions, etc. Among the most informative have been swood1000's numerous authoritative posts. So here I request some clarification from swood1000, a sort of crossing Ts and dotting Is, to make sure that I understand the crucial assertions in the above tag quote and the apparently -- but perhaps not -- obvious connections among these assertions. I ask for clarification because many observers must now assume that if there is even the slightest bit of wiggle room in the NCAA's own published standards (??), that UNC's -- or at least and more particularly MBB's -- violations would somehow be found "not proved."

1. Is a "Level 1 severe breach of conduct infraction" exactly the same as as a "Level 1 aggravated violation"? That is, are those phrases interchangeable?
No, "Level I" and "severe breach of conduct" are exactly the same thing. Then they look at the aggravating and mitigating factors in order to determine the penalties.


19.01.4 Penalty Structure. ...Penalties shall depend on the relative severity of the infraction(s), the presence of aggravating or mitigating factors and, in some cases, the existence of extenuating circumstances.

19.9.2.1 Aggravation. An aggravated case is one in which aggravating factors for a party outweigh mitigating factors for that party. A case should not be classified as aggravated solely because the number of aggravating factors is larger than the number of mitigating factors. An egregious aggravating factor may outweigh multiple mitigating factors.

19.9.3 Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors are circumstances that warrant a higher range of penalties for a particular party. A hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions determines whether aggravating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of aggravating factors include, but are not limited to, the following...



2. If yes, is it logically and literally impossible ["may not"] for the COI to sanction MBB with anything "less than a two year post-season ban, along with scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions"? [Wait. See #3 through 6 below.]
The UNC infractions happened before the mandatory penalties shown in the tables. For current infractions the penalties are mandatory (but there are exceptions for extenuating circumstances):


19.9.5 Core Penalties for Level I and Level II Violations. If a hearing panel concludes that an institution or involved individual committed one or more Level I or Level II violations, and after determining the appropriate classification based on aggravating and mitigating factors, the hearing panel shall prescribe core penalties from the ranges set forth in Figure 19-1 and described below. The panel may depart from the core penalties only as set forth in Bylaw 19.9.6.

19.9.6 Departures from Level I and Level II Core Penalties. If extenuating circumstances are found, the hearing panel may depart from the core penalties in Figure 19-1, provided the panel explains, in its decision, the basis for its prescription of core penalties different than those set forth in Figure 19-1.
So the penalties are not mandatory in this case.


3. The phrase "If they" in the third paragraph of the tag quote: (a) Who are "they"? (b) What body decides "if" they are guilty? (c) And if some entity/they is/are in fact found guilty of LOIC, does that necessarily, automatically, without any question whatsoever result in serious punishment for MBB?
This is talking about lack of institutional control, so the "they" is the institution. The COI panel decides if they are guilty. No, they don't say in an unambiguous way which team(s) will be penalized. I guess it is implied that the team(s) involved in the infraction(s) will be penalized, since there must be some athletes involved somewhere in the infraction. Certainly WBB is mentioned, but Allegations 4 and 5 only talk about "student athletes." The original NOA, when they charged LOIC, specifically named football, MBB and WBB:


This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses.
If there is going to be some supplementary material released then that may give us some more clues about which student-athletes they have in mind here. So no, it isn't cut and dried concerning a post-season ban for MBB (although it seems it would have been in the original NOA since they were named in the LOIC charge).


4. Being suspicious, I suspect there might be some wiggle room -- though it would have to be large enough enough to accommodate the MBB bus, even after it has sideswiped the WBB bus -- in a charge against "the university," if MBB is nowhere specificaly charged. Thus, in my question #3 and your para #3, if "they" refers not specifically to MBB, why would those serious sanctions in your para #2 be applied to MBB?

5. That is, ok, if the COI levies any sanctions on MBB, the sanctions must be, minimally, those listed in your para 2. But is there any possible circumstance in which the COI levels no sanctions against MBB?

6. Or, as you say ...

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by swood1000 http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=883300#post883300)
I also wonder how they would choose the sport(s) that will be banned from postseason competition. That's the thing that leaves me with a little bit of an uneasy feeling.


Yes, I think your concerns are warranted insofar as the certainty that MBB will get a post-season ban is concerned. The rules just don't specify which team but imply the offending team(s) which were identified in the original NOA as football, WBB and MBB.

PDDuke85
04-27-2016, 02:27 PM
Amen. They have not been our rivals since 1988. As far as I'm concerned, let them keep the victory bell. It is worthless.agree 1000%. Beat the bastards, spray paint the bell puke blue, and leave it on the field.

Nugget
04-27-2016, 02:33 PM
Please remember this -- the COI will be the source of any hammer blows. They are just getting the ANOA along with supporting documents, and it won't be a redacted version. I vaguely recall that they have 90 days to swing that hammer. Let's wait and see, huh.

http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1INFRACTION

I'm hopeful that the presence of USC's compliance director may result in at least the COI not be looking to bend over backwards to avoid finding violations in the way the enforcement staff appears to have done, given how brazenly things went the other direction in the Reggie Bush case with every possible doubt construed against USC.

Some other members of note, in addition to the former FERC enforcement director previously discussed upthread, include Thomas Hill's father and former George W. Bush Atty. General Alberto Gonzales. I have to say, however, I don't think Bobby Cremins is likely going to be a strong advocate for seriously punishing Carolina.

It's unclear to me whether all members of the COI hear every case. If the guy from USC ends up not being on this COI we'll truly know the fix is in.

Doria
04-27-2016, 02:43 PM
It's unclear to me whether all members of the COI hear every case. If the guy from USC ends up not being on this COI we'll truly know the fix is in.

Yeah, a cursory glance at the NCAA site doesn't clarify the answer to that question for me. Maybe I am not looking in the right place, but I got to a page about "Fairness and Integrity," and I had to give up.

sagegrouse
04-27-2016, 03:07 PM
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1INFRACTION

I'm hopeful that the presence of USC's compliance director may result in at least the COI not be looking to bend over backwards to avoid finding violations in the way the enforcement staff appears to have done, given how brazenly things went the other direction in the Reggie Bush case with every possible doubt construed against USC.

Some other members of note, in addition to the former FERC enforcement director previously discussed upthread, include Thomas Hill's father and former George W. Bush Atty. General Alberto Gonzales. I have to say, however, I don't think Bobby Cremins is likely going to be a strong advocate for seriously punishing Carolina.

It's unclear to me whether all members of the COI hear every case. If the guy from USC ends up not being on this COI we'll truly know the fix is in.

Five to seven, with alternates sitting in.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 03:16 PM
What I don't understand is how UNC gets around the bifurcated classes being an impermissible benefits. These were set up as lecture classes. Regular students had to go to the lectures, write papers, take exams, etc. However, for student athletes these were treated as "independent study" courses with almost nothing required of the student athlete. Were any non-athletes allowed to do these courses as "independent study" with almost all course requirements waived? If there weren't non-athletes in the "independent study" how can this not be an impermissible benefit?
You raise a good point. This is what the Wainstein Report says about the bifurcated classes:


In addition to the foregoing paper classes, we identified five classes that were bifurcated between two sets of students – those who were taught in the traditional lecture-class format and those who took the same class in a paper-class format. As Nyang’oro explained, these were standard lecture classes in which individual students were permitted to complete the class by simply turning in a paper, while the others had to attend class and complete all class assignments in the traditional manner.

We discovered the bifurcated classes during our review of grade rosters with Nyang’oro, who identified this phenomenon. He explained that there were a limited number of such instances. While we identified five such courses, it is possible that there were more.

There were a total of 154 enrollments in the classes we identified. While we cannot definitively state which students had the paper class experience and which had the traditional lecture experience in each class, Nyang’oro estimated that between one-third and one-half of the enrollments of each bifurcated class had the paper class experience. According to Nyang’oro, virtually every one of the students who was designated for paper-class treatment was a student-athlete.

I can see two problems here. First, Wainstein was unable to tell which students had the traditional lecture and which ones had the paper class treatment. Second, he relies on Nyang’oro who refuses to talk to the NCAA. So we might have a problem similar to McCants who talked to the press but then wouldn't talk to Wainstein. Furthermore, Nyang’oro said that "virtually" all the students who got paper class treatment were athletes. He didn't say that all athletes taking these classes got paper class treatment. So how do you identify which athletes were involved here?


For that matter how can you say that there was a loss of institutional control because athletes were "exposed" to phony classes when you're unwilling to say the classes were actually phony?
They didn't say that the classes were not phony. They said that student-athletes did not have any greater access to these classes than non-athletes. The LOIC charge was that:


individuals in the athletics and academic administrations on campus, particularly in the college of arts and sciences, did not identify or investigate anomalous courses

which permitted student-athletes to take these phony courses, along with non-athletes. But your point is well-taken. Here they are criticizing the administration for allowing harm to befall both student-athletes and non-athletes. But then elsewhere in the context of extra benefits they say that harm befalling both athletes and non-athletes is an issue for SACS and that the NCAA is only going to penalize for actions that affect/aid athletes more than non-athletes. And elsewhere in the academic fraud context they say that they are only going to punish when the school acknowledges a violation of their own academic integrity policy but here they say that something bad was going on without reference to what the school might think.

Maybe the answer is that LOIC involves systemic issues and punishes for having inadequate procedures in place or for failing to enforce them properly. Maybe it's not contradictory to point to a condition that does not itself constitute an infraction but which is undesirable and could only arise as a result of LOIC. In addition, they have the activities of Boxill, which were charged as infractions.

crdaul
04-27-2016, 03:33 PM
Next play...the game's not over yet....

swood1000
04-27-2016, 03:36 PM
http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1INFRACTION

I'm hopeful that the presence of USC's compliance director may result in at least the COI not be looking to bend over backwards to avoid finding violations in the way the enforcement staff appears to have done, given how brazenly things went the other direction in the Reggie Bush case with every possible doubt construed against USC.

Some other members of note, in addition to the former FERC enforcement director previously discussed upthread, include Thomas Hill's father and former George W. Bush Atty. General Alberto Gonzales. I have to say, however, I don't think Bobby Cremins is likely going to be a strong advocate for seriously punishing Carolina.

It's unclear to me whether all members of the COI hear every case. If the guy from USC ends up not being on this COI we'll truly know the fix is in.
The COI Internal Operating Procedures are here (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2016DICOI_IOPs_20160427.pdf). They expect people with a conflict of interest to recuse themselves.


3-3-1. Disqualification of Member by Recusal. Panel members are responsible for identifying actual or potential conflicts of interest. A panel member will initially decide whether recusal is necessary. If an actual conflict exists, the panel member is expected to step down. If the panel member determines that only a potential conflict or appearance of a potential conflict exists, the panel member shall inform the OCOI and consult with the chief hearing officer and chair. The chair has final authority to determine whether a conflict of interest exists and whether the panel member should be recused. If a panel member is recused, an alternate may be seated.

Jarhead
04-27-2016, 03:38 PM
agree 1000%. Beat the bastards, spray paint the bell puke blue, and leave it on the field.

I've got a better idea, I think. Paint it NCSU red and deliver it to State at an appropriate time.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 03:57 PM
Yes, I think your concerns are warranted insofar as the certainty that MBB will get a post-season ban is concerned. The rules just don't specify which team but imply the offending team(s) which were identified in the original NOA as football, WBB and MBB.
But keep in mind that potential recruits also do not know whether there is going to be a postseason ban for MBB and how long it will be. The current rules call for such a ban for up to four years and students typically only get a free transfer if the ban will last for the rest of their college eligibility.


14.7.2 Residence Requirement Waivers. The Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief may waive the one-year residence requirement for student-athletes under the following conditions or circumstances:

(c) On the recommendation of the Committee on Infractions, for a student-athlete who transfers to a member institution to continue the student-athlete’s opportunity for full participation in a sport because the student-athlete’s original institution was placed on probation by the NCAA with sanctions that would preclude the institution’s team in that sport from participating in postseason competition during all of the remaining seasons of the student-athlete’s eligibility (see also Bylaw 13.1.1.3.3);

13.1.1.3.3 Transfer From Institution Placed on Probation by Committee on Infractions. It is not necessary for an institution to obtain permission in writing to recruit a student-athlete at an institution that has been placed on probation with sanctions that preclude it from competing in postseason competition during the remaining seasons of the student-athlete’s eligibility.


Edit: also consider this: if UNC MBB gets a four year ban then every member of their team can transfer without having to sit out a year.

moonpie23
04-27-2016, 04:09 PM
agree 1000%. Beat the bastards, spray paint the bell puke blue, and leave it on the field.

i like this idea a lot...

BLPOG
04-27-2016, 04:18 PM
I had thought that non-athletes were indeed allowed to do these "courses" with the exact same (non)requirements as athletes. Am I wrong in this takeaway?

They were NOT, and that is one of the most outrageous aspects of the con that UNC and the NCAA, by its complicity, are pulling. The exact details are unclear because of UNC's obfuscation, but here are a few examples of why the standards for admissions to the classes were NOT the same:

1. Athletes were sometimes added after the end of drop/add.
2. For the bifurcated classes, they were sometimes added without the knowledge of actual lecture instructors (then Crowder let the students treat it as one of the phony independent studies).
3. Athletes were almost always accommodated while other students were sometimes turned down.
4. Sometimes non-athletes were added explicitly to cover high athlete enrollment numbers.
5. It is suspected that many of the non-athletes were connected to athletics, although that's not confirmed.

1-4 have supporting evidence/proof in the email releases. It's been too long since I've looked at them to find them quickly, but it's all there.

Course sections have a maximum capacity. They fill up. The emails contain many examples of Crowder selectively putting athletes in the bifurcated classes, arranging for new sections, splitting athletes across sections, etc. to put as many athletes in the classes as possible while putting in at least mild effort to cover her tracks. Those emails are often exchanges with members of the academic support staff for the athletes.

Beyond that, students (or academic support/coaches) had to go to Crowder or email her to arrange these classes. You can't register for a paper class using an online registration system, which most schools having been using now for two decades. How do students find out about the classes then but through the people already in them (i.e. athletes)? That point is why it's suspected many of the non-athletes were related to athletics in some way (e.g. student managers). It also explains why the number of non-athletes increased once fraternities found out about them - the introduction of another in-group that can pass the information around. They probably wouldn't have been able to enroll as many as they did if not for the fact that (1) Crowder was interested in covering her tracks, as she explicitly stated in at least one email, and (2) that was also when the football enrollments exploded, meaning many more athlete enrollments to hide.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 05:03 PM
I wondered why Rashad McCants was not charged with a failure to cooperate, like Crowder and Nyang'oro were. It turns out that the relevant By-laws, 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3, only require this of "a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member." I wonder whether if he had cooperated they would have been able to prove an infraction or whether they would say that non-athletes received the same treatment. This is what McCants said:


I didn’t write any papers. I didn’t write any papers, but I know that the tutors did help guys write papers – as far as help them through the grammar, the structure, paragraphs, so on and so forth. But, for some of the premier players, we didn’t write our papers. It was very simple. When it was time to turn in our papers for our “paper classes,” we would get a call from our tutors, we would all pack up in one big car, or pack up in two cars, and ride over to the tutor’s house, pick up our papers and go about our business.

If they are saying that this was routine for non-athletes as well then I just can't wrap my mind around it. I hope they are saying that they had nobody willing to testify to this.

Edit: UNC wouldn't be able to deny that this would violate their academic integrity policy, or they would have more of a threat from SACS than from the NCAA.
Edit2: McCants probably shut up when they told him that all his college statistics were about to be expunged.

hudlow
04-27-2016, 06:35 PM
i like this idea a lot...

Beat 'em - ignore the bell and let them figure out what to do with it.

gumbomoop
04-27-2016, 06:45 PM
To my questions in post #219, swood1000's thorough answers in post #225 lead me to this straightforward conclusion: If MBB is charged with Level 1 infractions, or if MBB is charged as a party to the broader LOIC, then the COI must levy penalties to include at least a two-year post-season ban, scholarship reductions, and recruiting restrictions. But no one knows at this point whether MBB will be so charged. And if not so charged, then MBB will probably escape all but the merest of wrist-slaps, and perhaps even that.

Given the analyses of several posters, most recently by BLPOG in post #236 of the "outrageous... con that UNC and the NCAA, by its [seeming] complicity, are pulling," the chances that MBB will be charged either with Level 1 infractions or under the LOIC umbrella appear small.

Maybe we'll all be surprised, pleasantly or unpleasantly, as the case may be, sometime down the road.

moonpie23
04-27-2016, 07:24 PM
i'm already unpleasantly surprised......

jgehtland
04-27-2016, 07:26 PM
...I just thought it would be funny to launch this campaign.

https://teespring.com/u-nc#pid=6&cid=652&sid=front

blueduke59
04-27-2016, 07:50 PM
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?

Nugget
04-27-2016, 07:53 PM
I wondered why Rashad McCants was not charged with a failure to cooperate, like Crowder and Nyang'oro were. It turns out that the relevant By-laws, 10.1-(a) and 19.2.3, only require this of "a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member." I wonder whether if he had cooperated they would have been able to prove an infraction or whether they would say that non-athletes received the same treatment. This is what McCants said:



If they are saying that this was routine for non-athletes as well then I just can't wrap my mind around it. I hope they are saying that they had nobody willing to testify to this.

Edit: UNC wouldn't be able to deny that this would violate their academic integrity policy, or they would have more of a threat from SACS than from the NCAA.
Edit2: McCants probably shut up when they told him that all his college statistics were about to be expunged.

Where did McCants say that? In a tv interview or to Wainstein? If the former, I guess I understand why the NCAA can't use that if he wouldn't say it directly to them and do so in a forum where he would be subject to examination by UNC's lawyers (although, again, I know there is little sympathy on this board for USC, that's pretty damn close to what the NCAA did with Lloyd Lake, not allowing USC's representatives to be in the interview). But, if he said this to Wainstein as part of Carolina's own internal investigation of itself, why couldn't the NCAA rely on it against Carolina?

DukePA
04-27-2016, 08:45 PM
I've got a better idea, I think. Paint it NCSU red and deliver it to State at an appropriate time.

BOOM!!!

swood1000
04-27-2016, 08:58 PM
Where did McCants say that? In a tv interview or to Wainstein? If the former, I guess I understand why the NCAA can't use that if he wouldn't say it directly to them and do so in a forum where he would be subject to examination by UNC's lawyers (although, again, I know there is little sympathy on this board for USC, that's pretty damn close to what the NCAA did with Lloyd Lake, not allowing USC's representatives to be in the interview). But, if he said this to Wainstein as part of Carolina's own internal investigation of itself, why couldn't the NCAA rely on it against Carolina?
See the Wainstein Report (http://www.unc.edu/spotlight/wainsteins-report-into-irregular-classes-released/) page 54, under the subsection "The Submission of Papers with Text Written by Others." McCants refused to talk to Wainstein.

swood1000
04-27-2016, 09:10 PM
To my questions in post #219, swood1000's thorough answers in post #225 lead me to this straightforward conclusion: If MBB is charged with Level 1 infractions, or if MBB is charged as a party to the broader LOIC, then the COI must levy penalties to include at least a two-year post-season ban, scholarship reductions, and recruiting restrictions. But no one knows at this point whether MBB will be so charged. And if not so charged, then MBB will probably escape all but the merest of wrist-slaps, and perhaps even that.

No, sorry for the confusion. The mandatory 2 - 4 year penalty didn't come until the year after these events. So there is no mandatory penalty here, but what reason would there be for the penalty to be markedly less? If the minimum penalty for an aggravated Level I is now two years and we have two level ones with one of them being LOIC, why would they give a penalty less than the minimum currently required for a run-of-the-mill aggravated Level I? Let's wait to see what is in the supporting documentation, if there is any.


Given the analyses of several posters, most recently by BLPOG in post #236 of the "outrageous... con that UNC and the NCAA, by its [seeming] complicity, are pulling," the chances that MBB will be charged either with Level 1 infractions or under the LOIC umbrella appear small.

Maybe we'll all be surprised, pleasantly or unpleasantly, as the case may be, sometime down the road.
They already have been charged with Level I infractions under the LOIC umbrella.

devildeac
04-27-2016, 09:25 PM
Interesting read:

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

Scorp4me
04-27-2016, 09:31 PM
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.

moonpie23
04-27-2016, 10:08 PM
[redacted] jay bilas

madscavenger
04-28-2016, 01:40 AM
He was the editor.

Hmmm. IIR, Jan Boxill wanted to do a little editing of her own. Must be part of the culture.