unc Athletics Scandal: Factual Information Docs released

[sammy3469]

For those still inclined. UNC has put out the FI info for the ANOA.

On first blush, it looks like the only thing the NCAA is really going after them for is ASPSA and Baddour's 2006 Independent Study report to the FAC counsel. Just unbelievable though I guess not surprising. Essentially, UNC successfully argued there was no academic fraud sans Boxill. How that logically flows from what they knew in 2006, I have no clue.

http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NCAA-amended-NOA-exhibits.pdf

[hallcity]

Ted Tatos ‏@BlueDevilicious 5m5 minutes ago

Potentially particularly problematic documents for UNC: NCAA ANOA FI docs: 59, 60, 79,80 93, 94. 93 is fraud admission, 94 describes it.


Have the FI documents been released? Where's he getting this?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Ted Tatos ‏@BlueDevilicious 5m5 minutes ago

Potentially particularly problematic documents for UNC: NCAA ANOA FI docs: 59, 60, 79,80 93, 94. 93 is fraud admission, 94 describes it.


Have the FI documents been released? Where's he getting this?
Look one post above you. ^^^^^^^^^^

[Tom B.]

Ted Tatos ‏@BlueDevilicious 5m5 minutes ago

Potentially particularly problematic documents for UNC: NCAA ANOA FI docs: 59, 60, 79,80 93, 94. 93 is fraud admission, 94 describes it.


Have the FI documents been released? Where's he getting this?


Yes, the FI documents were released. See the post immediately above yours -- it contains the link.

FI93 is UNC's response to SACS, and FI94 is the infamous Beth Bridger PowerPoint that describes how ASPSA put athletes in AFAM classes because they don't require things like attendance, note-taking, or staying awake, then flips out because those classes are going away ("THESE NO LONGER EXIST!").

[Jarhead]

For those still inclined. UNC has put out the FI info for the ANOA.

On first blush, it looks like the only thing the NCAA is really going after them for is ASPSA and Baddour's 2006 Independent Study report to the FAC counsel. Just unbelievable though I guess not surprising. Essentially, UNC successfully argued there was no academic fraud sans Boxill. How that logically flows from what they knew in 2006, I have no clue.

http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NCAA-amended-NOA-exhibits.pdf
Whatever was there amounts to a pretty complete white wash. What was it supposed to be telling us?

[sammy3469]

Whatever was there amounts to a pretty complete white wash. What was it supposed to be telling us?

All it is really telling us is that the crux of the argument of LOIC charge is something like this.


In 2002 UNC's ASPSA dept did a review of the enrollments in IS, but the FAC said nothing was untoward. Apparently the NCAA believes this review was kosher
In 2006 in response to Auburn's IS "abuse", UNC's ASPSA dept and AD Baddour did a second review and presented these finding a FAC. This is where it gets interesting.
The non-athletic FAC members (as told by Wainstein) and the FAC minutes indicate that all they were told was the general overview and that everything seemed on the up-and-up
Baddour and Mercer (ASPSA) tell Wainstein that they told FAC about the IS/paper class abuse, but FAC said it was fine and did nothing (i.e. trying to make it an academic issue)
Wainstein concludes Baddour and Mercer are full of it and knew about the paper classes and abuse


So the NCAA's conclusion is that ASPSA and athletics knew these classes were bogus in 2006, didn't tell FAC at the time when requested and then compounded that by lying to Wainstein which forms the basis of the non-Boxill part of the LOIC charge. So basically your run of the mill rule breaking and cover-up at the highest levels of athletic department.

Now if they are really going this route, this sort of logic and the cover-up is SMU level stuff, but the language in the ANOA is so waterdowned that who knows what the COI ultimately does. This isn't some rogue coach doing this, but the AD.

Just to note, this is different than the LOIC charge in that that one was more based off an accumulation of advisors providing impermissible benefits. This new logic is both a lot more powerful and potentially damaging (again if the NCAA decides to do anything). Now you have a cover-up in 2006 that wasn't necessarily alleged originally (though inferred since Wainstein spells it out in his report).

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Anyone ever seen BlueDevilicious and The Count in the same room together?

[BigWayne]

UNC has released more docs (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/records/)from the Wainstein inquiry.

They are on the same page where they had released docs previously, but there is a new column heading for May 2016 with 45 pdf files. Each one appears to be >3000 pages.

[devildeac]

UNC has released more docs (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/records/)from the Wainstein inquiry.

They are on the same page where they had released docs previously, but there is a new column heading for May 2016 with 45 pdf files. Each one appears to be >3000 pages.

Well, that should keep bluedevilicious/PackPride/Dan Kane/ncaa busy for a few more months :rolleyes: .

[BD80]

UNC has released more docs (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/records/)from the Wainstein inquiry.

They are on the same page where they had released docs previously, but there is a new column heading for May 2016 with 45 pdf files. Each one appears to be >3000 pages.

>135,000 ADDITIONAL pages?

Really?


To me, that is an alarm blaring. There is something incriminating buried in there.

[MarkD83]

>135,000 ADDITIONAL pages?

Really?


To me, that is an alarm blaring. There is something incriminating buried in there.

Or they are just dumping the rest of the documents because it does not matter anymore.

[devildeac]

>135,000 ADDITIONAL pages?

Really?


To me, that is an alarm blaring. There is something incriminating buried in there.


Or they are just dumping the rest of the documents because it does not matter anymore.

IIRC, the original estimate was that they had about 5 million (no typo) pages of info to release and did it in such a way (that Julio/Julian explained on the "front page" a few months back), that it was almost unsearchable, because of both format and sheer volume. :mad:

[BigWayne]

IIRC, the original estimate was that they had about 5 million (no typo) pages of info to release and did it in such a way (that Julio/Julian explained on the "front page" a few months back), that it was almost unsearchable, because of both format and sheer volume. :mad:

They made it searchable pdfs, but they redacted so much it's difficult to nail them down on specific violations. They redacted almost all dates in the stuff I looked at today in the new docs. They have also redacted words and names that didn't need to be redacted to satisfy FERPA. It's still a full on coverup exercise.

[madscavenger]

Not that they wouldn't be light years away from being a contender, any guess as to who might be the 2nd most expensive coverup in NCAA history?

[devildeac]

Not that they wouldn't be light years away from being a contender, any guess as to who might be the 2nd most expensive coverup in NCAA history?

Well, the L'ville scandal certainly isn't requiring any cover-up...

[BLPOG]

They made it searchable pdfs, but they redacted so much it's difficult to nail them down on specific violations. They redacted almost all dates in the stuff I looked at today in the new docs. They have also redacted words and names that didn't need to be redacted to satisfy FERPA. It's still a full on coverup exercise.

The first release was non-searchable pdfs. After they realized people were just going to run them through OCR software anyway, they decided to make subsequent releases searchable.

[PackMan97]

The first release was non-searchable pdfs. After they realized people were just going to run them through OCR software anyway, they decided to make subsequent releases searchable.

Accept that burried in there are a few non-searchable image pages. they are sneaky.

[moonpie23]

"it won't make any difference"

.................newt

[Newton_14]

"it won't make any difference"

.....newt

Correct... The cheats women will get slammed ala Cleveland St that time the NCAA was so mad at Kentucky...

Men's Hoops & FB? They will likely get some kind of academic award from the NCAA for this scandal.

[moonpie23]

uncheat's PR boys called me today and offered me a bundle to NOT knock this back up to page 1..



i turned them down...

[sammy3469]

uncheat's PR boys called me today and offered me a bundle to NOT knock this back up to page 1..



i turned them down...

In the spirit of full and fair disclosure, this happened yesterday:



An ongoing investigation has revealed former North Carolina State football player Eric Leak provided improper benefits to an unnamed University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill student-athlete, according to warrants released Thursday.

Let's just say he's not buying Porsche's for WBB players

http://abc11.com/news/warrants-leak-gave-improper-benefits-to-unc-athlete/1345918/

[devildeac]

In the spirit of full and fair disclosure, this happened yesterday:



Let's just say he's not buying Porsche's for WBB players

http://abc11.com/news/warrants-leak-gave-improper-benefits-to-unc-athlete/1345918/

As long as he provided similar benefits to other non-athlete members of the cheaters student body, no problem!

[BigWayne]

N&O has a letter to the editor from Jay Smith. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article79585317.html)



It is infuriating to listen to former UNC chancellor James Moeser continue to peddle the convenient fiction that UNC-Chapel Hill “didn’t have processes in place or an ability to really dig deeply enough” to uncover our massive academic fraud.


He was responding to a column over the weekend by Luke Decock. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/article78908947.html)

[gumbomoop]

For me, the single most outrageous aspect of the scandal is what Jay Smith ^ notes was an absence of "a will to defend academic integrity" at UNC. Although Smith's letter is a direct response to the infuriating nonsense still being peddled by former Chancellor Moeser, his final line should also be taken -- as I think he means it -- as a reminder of the cowardice of all those Silent Rams, the tenured faculty.

Unfortunately, we are approaching the first anniversary of Duke University's infuriating choice of one of those cowards to a crucial academic post. For, one of those unwilling to defend academic integrity, Valerie Ashby, is finishing her first year as Duke's Dean of A&S. Indeed, not only did Ashby not stand up for academic integrity, but she and many of her Chemistry Department colleagues praised -- repeat, slowly, praised -- the "detailed, transparent approach of the University's leadership in identifying and acting on the full scope of problems that were uncovered." That statement passes neither the laugh, leadership, nor integrity test. Claiming to approve the courageous response to misdeeds, Ashby in fact willingly participated in the dishonorable coverup. No Silence of the Rams for her. Bleating sheep manure, instead.

Has Ashby done a fine job this year? Has she recanted her original sin? I hope she will very soon be able to use Duke as a stepping stone to move up her career ladder. Maybe Baylor could use her vision, courage, and leadership right about now. Until she leaves, Duke University is tainted by the deepest academic scandal in CH: the degradation of academic integrity by the very people charged with its defense.

[madscavenger]

Has SAC set a specific date for release of the one year review? The paid guns, i'm sure, have been engaged in honing their 'dog and ram' act in a manner suitable to SAC to the degree that their slap on the wrist will leave nary a mark.

[BigWayne]

Has SAC set a specific date for release of the one year review? The paid guns, i'm sure, have been engaged in honing their 'dog and ram' act in a manner suitable to SAC to the degree that their slap on the wrist will leave nary a mark.

Last year they SACS held their June meeting on June 11th and released results on June 18th. I would expect a similar schedule.

[moonpie23]

face it guys......no harm, no foul.....


they skate......

[ncexnyc]

face it guys...no harm, no foul....


they skate...
I hate to say it, but after everything we've seen this looks to be true.

[DukePA]

face it guys...no harm, no foul...


they skate...

Yep and because their lack of integrity and decency has been laid bare, they are NOT OUR RIVALS. After despising them with a modicum of respect for 49 years, it's going to take intense effort to put them into my indifferent "file."

[dukie’s_daughter]

I wish I could feel indifferent to them...I, too, have despised them all my life... All that's changed is having the "modicum of respect". The feeling of hatred has only intensified!

[dukebluesincebirth]

They might escape the NCAA, but I believe in karma. And so does Kris Jenkins! There'll be more to come.

[Skitzle]

I get depressed everytime I see this thread, but then I read it anyway just in case maybe....

Sigh... Am I the only one?

[moonpie23]

I get depressed everytime I see this thread, but then I read it anyway just in case maybe...

Sigh... Am I the only one?

no.....i'm looking for some new thread.......this one is depressing...


well, like depressing a lot....that is, until the ncaa gives them a wrist slap......that thread is really gonna depress me...

[Indoor66]

Maybe everyone ought to step back, take a breath and wait for the NCAA COI to announce the penalties for 5 LEVEL 1 INFRACTIONS BY A REPEAT OFFENDER!

Then maybe we will have something to discuss or complain about.

[Jarhead]

Maybe everyone ought to step back, take a breath and wait for the NCAA COI to announce the penalties for 5 LEVEL 1 INFRACTIONS BY A REPEAT OFFENDER!

Then maybe we will have something to discuss or complain about.


That's the way to go, Indoor. You hit the bull. They are walking the plank very soon.

[MarkD83]

Maybe everyone ought to step back, take a breath and wait for the NCAA COI to announce the penalties for 5 LEVEL 1 INFRACTIONS BY A REPEAT OFFENDER!

Then maybe we will have something to discuss or complain about.


There was some discussion a while ago that suggested the NCAA is worried that too harsh a penalty will just result in legal proceedings and a reduction in penalties in the future.

The COI is different than the investigators that put together the ANOA. I am holding onto the idea that the COI looks at all of the documents that have been released and are still in the ANOA. After studying them all, they then do the unexpected and quote directly from UNC's report to SACS and to the charts in the W report about attendance in abnormal classes. That leads them to imparting penalties beyond the dates and teams listed in the ANOA. UNC would go ballistic and file suits and eventually have the penalties reduced. However, just like PSU the PR damage will already be done.

[PackMan97]

There was some discussion a while ago that suggested the NCAA is worried that too harsh a penalty will just result in legal proceedings and a reduction in penalties in the future.

The COI is different than the investigators that put together the ANOA. I am holding onto the idea that the COI looks at all of the documents that have been released and are still in the ANOA. After studying them all, they then do the unexpected and quote directly from UNC's report to SACS and to the charts in the W report about attendance in abnormal classes. That leads them to imparting penalties beyond the dates and teams listed in the ANOA. UNC would go ballistic and file suits and eventually have the penalties reduced. However, just like PSU the PR damage will already be done.

Could they thought? The NCAA clearly overreached in punishing PSU for a child sex scandal. In this case the NCAA would be punishing UNC for cheating to keep athletes enrolled and eligible.

[moonpie23]

i'm over it......the COI will prolly hand down some convoluted BS about 2 scholarships lost on the first tuesday of each semester for a yet-to-be-determined time period or something equally meaningless....

[Skitzle]

The coi can't hit unc mbb a little. This is all or nothing I think. Since men's basketball is no longer mentioned in the NOA even a small slap on the wrist means they're guilty of something. Which is almost like a confirmation that they are downplaying penalties.

I don't expect ANY penalties for mbb at this point.

[4Gen]

An oldy goldy

http://www.foxsports.com/south/story/unc-player-plagiarized-from-11-year-olds-102512

[madscavenger]

Well, its easy to say that the COI isn't going to be influenced by outside pressure. But i say keep pounding away. Post new stuff, post old stuff. Encourage media to pick some of it up, rehash or not. Let anyone and everyone voice their disgust at both the putrid details and the myriad forms of cover up that willfully promote legitimacy and defend the technical and ethical charges against them, the center of which is the "Carolina Way". Cheating at every opportunity has become their legacy. The basketball world has no doubt. SAC has no doubt. But the NCAA.... The shouting must go on, at the very least, until the COI has spoke their conscience.

But hear this:

Maybe in the end it will not have any bearing upon how gentle a "pounding" they receive, but considering that any realisticly appropriate punishment is being fought by every means possible by outside pressure in favor of absolution, we must not let this travesty end without a fight. Burn the ships, i say, burn the ships!

[sammy3469]

There was some discussion a while ago that suggested the NCAA is worried that too harsh a penalty will just result in legal proceedings and a reduction in penalties in the future.

The COI is different than the investigators that put together the ANOA. I am holding onto the idea that the COI looks at all of the documents that have been released and are still in the ANOA. After studying them all, they then do the unexpected and quote directly from UNC's report to SACS and to the charts in the W report about attendance in abnormal classes. That leads them to imparting penalties beyond the dates and teams listed in the ANOA. UNC would go ballistic and file suits and eventually have the penalties reduced. However, just like PSU the PR damage will already be done.
This keeps on getting glossed over, but allegation 4 and 5 are about willful abetting and concealing by their AD at the time to academics about the extant of the scam in 2006. That's as serious an allegation as the NCAA has its arsenal, so if the COI wants to hammer them from here to eternity, they can. Want is another matter.

[sagegrouse]

There was some discussion a while ago that suggested the NCAA is worried that too harsh a penalty will just result in legal proceedings and a reduction in penalties in the future.

The COI is different than the investigators that put together the ANOA. I am holding onto the idea that the COI looks at all of the documents that have been released and are still in the ANOA. After studying them all, they then do the unexpected and quote directly from UNC's report to SACS and to the charts in the W report about attendance in abnormal classes. That leads them to imparting penalties beyond the dates and teams listed in the ANOA. UNC would go ballistic and file suits and eventually have the penalties reduced. However, just like PSU the PR damage will already be done.

It is hard to imagine that UNC could go to court. UNC, as a condition of membership, has agreed to the discipline proceedings specified in the bylaws, etc. You legal eagles can disagree, but I have always been told that judges don't want to jump into something that has been fully investigated in a process where both sides were represented.

The one exception I can think of is if the State of North Carolina interposed itself through state actions in the case of, for example, a huge monetary penalty. This happened in the Penn State case, where there was a $60+ million penalty, and resulted in a more moderate punishment.

BTW, if UNC skates, this may be the end of the NCAA. The uproar -- led by schools that received large penalties for fairly simple violations -- would deafening. Accordingly, I think the stakes are high, and UNC will get hammered.

[madscavenger]

If it did go to court, the odds of actually having a trial, i would think, are close to zero. Why? Discovery! Beside there being something damning under virtually every rock examined, every party implicated raises the specter of a nasty plea bargain. One slug leads to another, rivulets lead to rivers, the webbing rips asunder, and sooner or later big names and big money emerge. Discovery is the sunlight, the Enola Gay that could expose and explode the cabal. They can't let that happen.

[Indoor66]

If it did go to court, the odds of actually having a trial, i would think, are close to zero. Why? Discovery! Beside there being something damning under virtually every rock examined, every party implicated raises the specter of a nasty plea bargain. One slug leads to another, rivulets lead to rivers, the webbing rips asunder, and sooner or later big names and big money emerge. Discovery is the sunlight, the Enola Gay that could expose and explode the cabal. They can't let that happen.

Wow, just WOW! Does the Enola Gay have the same impact as does a certain mention under Godwin's Law? If not, it should. Maybe Madscavenger's Law?

Yours is a beautiful post, full of wonderful wording, allusions and implications. Well Done.

[MarkD83]

If it did go to court, the odds of actually having a trial, i would think, are close to zero. Why? Discovery! Beside there being something damning under virtually every rock examined, every party implicated raises the specter of a nasty plea bargain. One slug leads to another, rivulets lead to rivers, the webbing rips asunder, and sooner or later big names and big money emerge. Discovery is the sunlight, the Enola Gay that could expose and explode the cabal. They can't let that happen.

Here is my new way of thinking about the "going to court" issue. In the setting up of the ANOA you are dealing with the NCAA investigators whose livelihoods depend upon the existence of the NCAA "corporation". UNC can "threaten" to go to court (without the intent of doing this) because the NCAA as an organization has more to lose with discovery than UNC.

The COI is made up of folks from entities that are separate from the corporate structure at the NCAA.

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

They have no fear of being taken to court. In fact the former president of UGA, the VP for athletic compliance at USC (california), the commissioner of the SEC and the executive director of the College Football Playoff Foundation may find that having the UNC decision go to court is the best way to break-up the NCAA and start a new P5 governing body.

I believe Bubba's quote that was something like "I hope the COI rules fairly" was a recognition by UNC that it has no influence on the COI.

Of course I am currently in the mind-set that UNC will get minor penalties but the administration at UNC is still sweating this out.

[Skitzle]

Here is my new way of thinking about the "going to court" issue. In the setting up of the ANOA you are dealing with the NCAA investigators whose livelihoods depend upon the existence of the NCAA "corporation". UNC can "threaten" to go to court (without the intent of doing this) because the NCAA as an organization has more to lose with discovery than UNC.

The COI is made up of folks from entities that are separate from the corporate structure at the NCAA.

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

They have no fear of being taken to court. In fact the former president of UGA, the VP for athletic compliance at USC (california), the commissioner of the SEC and the executive director of the College Football Playoff Foundation may find that having the UNC decision go to court is the best way to break-up the NCAA and start a new P5 governing body.

I believe Bubba's quote that was something like "I hope the COI rules fairly" was a recognition by UNC that it has no influence on the COI.

Of course I am currently in the mind-set that UNC will get minor penalties but the administration at UNC is still sweating this out.

There is always hope, but I'm more inclined to believe that despite not being bound to the NCAA the COI is likely to make decisions in step with the NCAA's desires.

[sagegrouse]

There is always hope, but I'm more inclined to believe that despite not being bound to the NCAA the COI is likely to make decisions in step with the NCAA's desires.

Nevertheless, as AD Kevin White said a few months ago, "People often misunderstand the NCAA. The NCAA is an organization created by the schools to enforce the rules made by the schools."

[Skitzle]

Nevertheless, as AD Kevin White said a few months ago, "People often misunderstand the NCAA. The NCAA is an organization created by the schools to enforce the rules made by the schools."

Here's to getting my hopes back up..

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/4335363/image.0.png

[PackMan97]

Wow, just WOW! Does the Enola Gay have the same impact as does a certain mention under Godwin's Law? If not, it should. Maybe Madscavenger's Law?

In that case, just mention Bockscar or Mussolini. Most folks will just look at you and star quizically.

Besides, shouldn't it be "Little Boy"? as it was actually the instrument of destruction and not just the messenger? I don't know, maybe the metaphor was right. Discovery is the messenger that wll deliver a nuclear bomb. Ya, I like it that way.

[oldnavy]

In that case, just mention Bockscar or Mussolini. Most folks will just look at you and star quizically.

Besides, shouldn't it be "Little Boy"? as it was actually the instrument of destruction and not just the messenger? I don't know, maybe the metaphor was right. Discovery is the messenger that wll deliver a nuclear bomb. Ya, I like it that way.

Who's the head of the COI? Would that be Col Paul Tibbetts?

[Newton_14]

Sorry I don't have a link because I saw it on Facebook, but someone smarter than I will surely find the link. So there is "gall" and then there is unCheat GALL. Despite the entire planet now knowing they are complete frauds and cheats and none of their athletic accomplishments in at least the last 25+ years mean a damn thing to anyone, they have put out a statement (tweet?)about their "42 National Championships" and asking about the lame Duke (using incorrect spelling) 2015 poster is again (retferring to our 5 BB Titles). omg, seriously? So how many of those 42 tainted titles with large asterisks beside them were won by using fake students who stayed eligible and earned fake degrees by not attending fake classes??

And this wasn't some blind idiot fanboy putting it out. It came from unc as far as I could tell. LOL. Those "42 championships" are worth about as much as those fake diplomas those fake students were handed when they walked across the podium at their "graduation ceremony". PUHUHLease uncCheat.... you can take those 42 fake whatevers and stick them firmly where the sun does not shine!

9F all day everyday. Go To Hell Carolina Go To Hell. And take those meaningless banners with you!

[Merlindevildog91]

Do any of you happen to live in Belews Creek, NC?

Trying to figure out which of my neighbors has the wifi network called "GTHC-GTH."

Seriously, there was a time when I had a modicum of respect for the institution and those who got a degree from there.

No longer. (Redact) them. (Redact) their entire families. (Redact) them unto the third and fourth generations.

[BigWayne]

Sadly, SACS has removed UNC from the bad boy list. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article84158937.html) It's not posted on the SACS website (http://www.sacscoc.org/accreditationDisclosure.asp) yet, so it's hard to see what reason they gave. The BS that UNC sent them most recently wasn't particularly any more convincing than the BS that was sent last year, but SACS bought off on it for some reason.

On the other side, John Calipari is indirectly calling out Roy and Rick. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/is-john-calipari-firing-shots-at-louisville-unc/ar-AAh5LjW?li=BBnba9I)


"All I can tell you is this: If it happens on your campus and it happens with your assistants and those people, you probably have a good idea of what's going on," Calipari said Tuesday. "It happens back in their hometown, it happens back with their family … there's no way you can know. You just can't know. All I can say is most coaches have an idea if it happened on their campus. You might not be the first to know about it but you eventually hear about it."

[Doria]

Sadly, SACS has removed UNC from the bad boy list. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article84158937.html) It's not posted on the SACS website (http://www.sacscoc.org/accreditationDisclosure.asp) yet, so it's hard to see what reason they gave. The BS that UNC sent them most recently wasn't particularly any more convincing than the BS that was sent last year, but SACS bought off on it for some reason.

On the other side, John Calipari is indirectly calling out Roy and Rick. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/is-john-calipari-firing-shots-at-louisville-unc/ar-AAh5LjW?li=BBnba9I)

Ha, well, I guess Calipari should know.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So, it seems the moral of this story of immorality is that it's simply going to slowly evaporate from the awareness of the general public?

[slower]

So, it seems the moral of this story of immorality is that it's simply going to slowly evaporate from the awareness of the general public?

Yes - exactly as their PR and legal teams have planned it.

[madscavenger]

SAC has unveiled their new Mission Statement, which in a nutshell is: "seeing 100 men parading naked down Franklin Street and calling them well dressed".

The disgusting truth is that they have abandoned the Mission upon which they were founded. Their professional judgement has led them to conclude that the act of subverting education is adequate substitute for real education. Twenty years of covering it up is of no consequence. Being lied to in formal responses to inquiry matters not. Established principals and ethics be damned. At least SAC is not hiding in the bushes; they are out there naked as well, leading the parade.

[hudlow]

6443

[arnie]

So, it seems the moral of this story of immorality is that it's simply going to slowly evaporate from the awareness of the general public?

The local news says UNC has done everything required and now in the clear. A most honorable program!

[BigWayne]

Meanwhile, Norfolk State gets 97 wins stripped for level 2 violations. (http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/norfolk-state/norfolk-state-hit-with-probation-other-sanctions/article_79e8da10-20c4-58d2-9277-295a2702dfd7.html)


“We were very proactive in addressing the situation,” Miller said. The NCAA “felt we were very honest. We weren’t hiding anything. It was just an error.”

[dudog84]

Meanwhile, Norfolk State gets 97 wins stripped for level 2 violations. (http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/norfolk-state/norfolk-state-hit-with-probation-other-sanctions/article_79e8da10-20c4-58d2-9277-295a2702dfd7.html)

For those that don't know, Norfolk State is an HBCU. Where is the outrage from virtually anyone who is not a uNC grad?

[SilkyJ]

Meanwhile, Norfolk State gets 97 wins stripped for level 2 violations. (http://pilotonline.com/sports/college/norfolk-state/norfolk-state-hit-with-probation-other-sanctions/article_79e8da10-20c4-58d2-9277-295a2702dfd7.html)

Yup. This is how the NCAA rolls. UNC cheats, punish the little guy. That should appease the bloodthirst. :rolleyes:

[CDu]

Sadly, SACS has removed UNC from the bad boy list. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article84158937.html) It's not posted on the SACS website (http://www.sacscoc.org/accreditationDisclosure.asp) yet, so it's hard to see what reason they gave. The BS that UNC sent them most recently wasn't particularly any more convincing than the BS that was sent last year, but SACS bought off on it for some reason.

On the other side, John Calipari is indirectly calling out Roy and Rick. (http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/is-john-calipari-firing-shots-at-louisville-unc/ar-AAh5LjW?li=BBnba9I)

Not sure why anyone suspected that SACS was going to do anything further. Folks who were counting on SACS to be a relevant problem were guilty of wishful thinking. The only hope was/is that the NCAA would bring the hammer down for this. Universities are very well-versed in making sure they remain accredited. There was basically no chance they'd fall short of maintaining their accreditation.

[BigWayne]

Not sure why anyone suspected that SACS was going to do anything further. Folks who were counting on SACS to be a relevant problem were guilty of wishful thinking. The only hope was/is that the NCAA would bring the hammer down for this. Universities are very well-versed in making sure they remain accredited. There was basically no chance they'd fall short of maintaining their accreditation.

I expected they might put them on probation for a 2nd year, but never expected they would revoke accreditation.

[CDu]

I expected they might put them on probation for a 2nd year, but never expected they would revoke accreditation.

Yeah, a 2nd year of probation was at least a possibility, but there was basically a zero percent chance they'd lose their accreditation. These accrediting bodies typically make it pretty clear what you need to do to get off the bad kid list. It would be astounding for a school to fail to do what was needed to get back in good graces.

[gumbomoop]

I am surprised SACS didn't hold Folt accountable for the lies she told in the original report.

But as I haven't read any updates provided by Folt, I guess I could imagine her promising not to lie (as much) in the future, thus satisfying SACS that appropriate reforms were now in place, and thus further obviating any awkward necessity for SACS to examine its own publicly blathered commitment to the core values of integrity, accountability, transparency, self-regulation, and continuous quality improvement. [Or, to be more precise: "core values," "integrity," "accountability," "transparency," etc.]

And for you cynics, should Folt carry through on any presumed promise to lie less in the future, this would at least technically constitute "quality improvement."

[madscavenger]

That doesn't mean SACS nor the NCAA should not be taken to the woodshed by legitimate Institutions of higher learning, the media who eventually jumped on the bandwagon and now look even more embarrassingly inept, and the public at large. Enough info finally garnered sufficient public exposure to the extent that UNC's self proclaimed high standards were as phony as they were abusive. Those who have been incessantly vocal all along about the scandal, the willful lack of a moral center at UNC permeating the guts of all things ethical and proper in the name of egotistical arrogance, should not cease their protestations. As Kleenex or M&Ms are to their universe, UNC is to bastardising academic integrity and cheating in the athletic arena. They ooze scandal, and opponents of that stench should never refrain from criticism for UNC deservedly has become a cliché for the despicable activities in which they deliberately engaged.

[devildeac]

One of the patients I saw today is a Syracuse grad and I didn't have the courage to introduce this topic into the social history part of his visit today. You know, fear of inciting physical violence or causing a heart attack in my office :rolleyes:. Yea, I didn't expect them to yank the cheaters accreditation but I really did expect another year of probation considering all the lying and cheating that was done. My DBR signature still applies.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

That doesn't mean SACS nor the NCAA should not be taken to the woodshed by legitimate Institutions of higher learning, the media who eventually jumped on the bandwagon and now look even more embarrassingly inept, and the public at large. Enough info finally garnered sufficient public exposure to the extent that UNC's self proclaimed high standards were as phony as they were abusive. Those who have been incessantly vocal all along about the scandal, the willful lack of a moral center at UNC permeating the guts of all things ethical and proper in the name of egotistical arrogance, should not cease their protestations. As Kleenex or M&Ms are to their universe, UNC is to bastardising academic integrity and cheating in the athletic arena. They ooze scandal, and opponents of that stench should never refrain from criticism for UNC deservedly has become a cliché for the despicable activities in which they deliberately engaged.

Money, money, money, money.

NCAA works for the colleges, and the colleges want to make money. It is an absurd version of "enforcement."

Also..... M&Ms? Really?

[CDu]

That doesn't mean SACS nor the NCAA should not be taken to the woodshed by legitimate Institutions of higher learning, the media who eventually jumped on the bandwagon and now look even more embarrassingly inept, and the public at large. Enough info finally garnered sufficient public exposure to the extent that UNC's self proclaimed high standards were as phony as they were abusive. Those who have been incessantly vocal all along about the scandal, the willful lack of a moral center at UNC permeating the guts of all things ethical and proper in the name of egotistical arrogance, should not cease their protestations. As Kleenex or M&Ms are to their universe, UNC is to bastardising academic integrity and cheating in the athletic arena. They ooze scandal, and opponents of that stench should never refrain from criticism for UNC deservedly has become a cliché for the despicable activities in which they deliberately engaged.

I don't see any evidence as to why SACS should be taken to the woodshed. The NCAA? Absolutely, they seem to be deferring to the dollar signs. But to suggest SACS is being shady is to suggest they have some reason to be shady. Why would one think that SACS benefits by giving UNC a free pass? What would they gain?

I think that the path to correcting ills with SACS is a much different and easier thing than NCAA violations related to lack of institutional control or improper benefits. Remember: this is MUCH more an NCAA issue than an accreditation issue. This scandal represents a reasonably large chunk of scholarship athletes in revenue sports, but it involves only a tiny fraction of the departments, of the faculty, and of the students of the university. It is much easier to show you have cleaned up a mess isolated to less than 1% of your university than it is to show you have addressed corruption spanning a huge percentage of your athletic program.

[madscavenger]

I don't see any evidence as to why SACS should be taken to the woodshed. The NCAA? Absolutely, they seem to be deferring to the dollar signs. But to suggest SACS is being shady is to suggest they have some reason to be shady. Why would one think that SACS benefits by giving UNC a free pass? What would they gain?

I think that the path to correcting ills with SACS is a much different and easier thing than NCAA violations related to lack of institutional control or improper benefits. Remember: this is MUCH more an NCAA issue than an accreditation issue. This scandal represents a reasonably large chunk of scholarship athletes in revenue sports, but it involves only a tiny fraction of the departments, of the faculty, and of the students of the university. It is much easier to show you have cleaned up a mess isolated to less than 1% of your university than it is to show you have addressed corruption spanning a huge percentage of your athletic program.


But have they really demonstrated anything to SAC? Carol Folt admitted UNC failings, then later championed that UNC had taken 71(?) actions in pursuit of satisfying SAC demands.Weren't virtually all the supposed actions cited by UNC as evidence of righting the ship things that had been established BEFORE SAC demanded they clean up their act and employ safeguards to guard against 'recidivism'? And weren't some of the same people implicated in carrying out and covering up included on oversight committees going forward? Most of these activities, as far as responding to SAC, were by nature of the SAC accusations to put it kindly, deemed ineffective as the charges were made despite said compliances. Are we to believe that SAC recharacterized that which they believed were egregious affronts to academic integrity? What proof is there of activity newly taken in compliance consistent with the SAC demand? More so, if there were any, can the effectiveness of changes made possibly be evaluated by examining a period as trivial as one year? The charges reflect violations fundamental to the mission of SAC. A high bar is imperative. Real reform cannot be demonstrated in so short a time. SAC is in violation of judiciously carrying out the very function for which it was created. Your comments, as stated, went to SAC, not the NCAA. With regard to SAC, they caved.

It does not matter that the scandal is reflective of a small percentage of students. It is systemic and discriminative and is an indictment to the University as a whole. Why? Because the scandal was initiated with the knowledge of individuals at the very top, and for 20 years they provided cover. Chancellors, Provosts, ADs, and on and on, are no longer on the payroll. Corruption at the top is rightfully an indictment of the University itself. As far as the faculty, the student body, and the community at large: while the breadth and depth of the situation was largely unknown, the knowledge of obvious impropriety in particular areas was much more widespread than reported. Lots of people knew.

[sagegrouse]

It does not matter that the scandal is reflective of a small percentage of students. It is systemic and discriminative and is an indictment to the University as a whole. Why? Because the scandal was initiated with the knowledge of individuals at the very top, and for 20 years they provided cover. Chancellors, Provosts, ADs, and on and on, are no longer on the payroll. Corruption at the top is rightfully an indictment of the University itself. As far as the faculty, the student body, and the community at large: while the breadth and depth of the situation was largely unknown, the knowledge of obvious impropriety in particular areas was much more widespread than reported. Lots of people knew.

Shameful. Disfiguring. Permanently damaging to UNC's reputation? Probably. Loss of accreditation for the U.S.'s oldest state university with removal of federal benefits and aid for 29,000 students? Was never gonna happen.

Many decades ago I worked as a research assistant on Duke's first-ever self-study for SACS. Duke had been exempt as one of the six founders of SACS in 1912 (Trinity then). UNC was also one of the founders of SACS.

SACS slapped UNC around a bit on these grievous academic violations -- probation is a black mark for sure. UNC gave an apparently voluminous response on changes made and promised to do better (no I haven't read the report, and I will not). That's the most we can expect from SACS. UNC is one of the "stars of the Southern sky" in academics, and corporal punishment is all it is going to receive -- no incarceration or capital punishment.

The NCAA will have to administer meaningful penalties, and I personally believe the Committee on Infractions will do so -- but I understand the reigning skepticism at DBR on such actions.

[CDu]

But have they really demonstrated anything to SAC? Carol Folt admitted UNC failings, then later championed that UNC had taken 71(?) actions in pursuit of satisfying SAC demands.Weren't virtually all the supposed actions cited by UNC as evidence of righting the ship things that had been established BEFORE SAC demanded they clean up their act and employ safeguards to guard against 'recidivism'? And weren't some of the same people implicated in carrying out and covering up included on oversight committees going forward? Most of these activities, as far as responding to SAC, were by nature of the SAC accusations to put it kindly, deemed ineffective as the charges were made despite said compliances. Are we to believe that SAC recharacterized that which they believed were egregious affronts to academic integrity? What proof is there of activity newly taken in compliance consistent with the SAC demand? More so, if there were any, can the effectiveness of changes made possibly be evaluated by examining a period as trivial as one year? The charges reflect violations fundamental to the mission of SAC. A high bar is imperative. Real reform cannot be demonstrated in so short a time. SAC is in violation of judiciously carrying out the very function for which it was created. Your comments, as stated, went to SAC, not the NCAA. With regard to SAC, they caved.

It does not matter that the scandal is reflective of a small percentage of students. It is systemic and discriminative and is an indictment to the University as a whole. Why? Because the scandal was initiated with the knowledge of individuals at the very top, and for 20 years they provided cover. Chancellors, Provosts, ADs, and on and on, are no longer on the payroll. Corruption at the top is rightfully an indictment of the University itself. As far as the faculty, the student body, and the community at large: while the breadth and depth of the situation was largely unknown, the knowledge of obvious impropriety in particular areas was much more widespread than reported. Lots of people knew.

We have very little idea what all has been said to SACS and what all has been done. And I completely disagree with your second paragraph. The problem was systemic, but only to much less than 1% of the university. In terms of the university as a whole, it is such a small part of the picture. That is absolutely relevant to SACS. In the absence of revenue sports, it never happens. And SACS isn't in the business of caring about sports.

Is what UNC has done deplorable? Absolutely. But SACS penalized them for past transgressions by putting them on probation, and UNC apparently addressed enough changes to get taken off probation. You are barking up the wrong tree in thinking SACS is the right body to hammer UNC for this. It is, as it always has been, up to the NCAA to take action.

[-jk]

...
The NCAA will have to administer meaningful penalties, and I personally believe the Committee on Infractions will do so -- but I understand the reigning skepticism at DBR on such actions.

I've said it all a long - they're gonna skate. The NCAA doesn't have the, um, nerve...

-jk

[madscavenger]

We have very little idea what all has been said to SACS and what all has been done. And I completely disagree with your second paragraph. The problem was systemic, but only to much less than 1% of the university. In terms of the university as a whole, it is such a small part of the picture. That is absolutely relevant to SACS. In the absence of revenue sports, it never happens. And SACS isn't in the business of caring about sports.

Is what UNC has done deplorable? Absolutely. But SACS penalized them for past transgressions by putting them on probation, and UNC apparently addressed enough changes to get taken off probation. You are barking up the wrong tree in thinking SACS is the right body to hammer UNC for this. It is, as it always has been, up to the NCAA to take action.

Well it did happen and yes, that the individuals participated in athletics is not the operative substance of SAC involvement (as previously acknowledged). They were admitted as students. They, irrespective of sports, were there to get an education. UNC, however, had other priorities. Not only did they not encourage and aide them in that endeavor, they stood in the way. Enter SAC. UNC knowingly, willfully, and given that they took it to unheard of extremes brazenly, participated in schemes in direct violation of principles long ago established by SAC. I stand by my second paragraph, for the reasons cited therein.

UNC cannot possibly have demonstrated that anything they may have done, whether of substance or not, has at this point effectively produced satisfactory results. Window dressing, even if legitimate, is nothing but that, window dressing; it is not the meat. They have publicly, as mentioned before, in numerous statements verbal, written, posted on official websites and through PR what they have done to address the charges made by SAC. It is there to see and has been exposed point by point. All in all, they have done nothing but repackage the rhetoric. SAC is derelict in accepting that UNC has complied. Failure to impose a second year of Probation in this case amounts to UNC receiving punishment to the equivalence of "lets take a time out". Note: Accreditation is not at stake, if I understand it correctly, until after a second year of Probation fails to produce satisfaction. So, accreditation shouldn't even be in the conversation.

Once again, the NCAA is not relevant here, however, many of the factors are appropriately legitimate for consideration by both.

[PackMan97]

UNC just paid out $795k to the family of a kid beat up in an off-campus hazing incident two years ago. Four of the players involved served a one game suspension against Liberty. Three of the four are still enrolled at UNC and on the team in apparent violation of UNC system policies involving hazing and violence against fellow students.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article85089202.html


According to UNC’s anti-hazing policy, found on its website, the university “expressly prohibits hazing or any activity that puts a student’s physical, emotional or psychological health and safety at risk.”

Boyer, who played in seven games during the 2014 season before transferring to the University of Southern California, where he’s now a junior walk-on receiver, has never discussed the incident publicly. Neither have his parents, who at the time didn’t return several phone calls seeking comment.

The university has also offered few details about what happened at the Aloft. In addition to never publicly acknowledging that Boyer was a victim of hazing, university officials also never confirmed he’d endured a concussion as a result of what happened at the hotel.

Days after the news of the hazing incident became public, officials from UNC’s campus police department and the Chapel Hill Police Department said they hadn’t been aware of the incident at the Aloft. Police were made aware of the incident four days after it happened.

Neither police department investigated it. Jeff McCracken, the UNC chief of police, said at the time that because the altercation happened at an off-campus hotel, it was out of his department’s jurisdiction.

Chris Blue, the chief of the Chapel Hill Police Department, said then that he couldn’t investigate the incident without an official complaint from Boyer or his family. Blue said he received no such complaint.




Those four players, none of whom were made available to reporters throughout the 2014 season, still practiced with the team and played after their one-game suspensions ended. Lawrence, Miles and Stewart, all defensive backs, are still on the team.

Those three are expected to be among the Tar Heels’ most important defensive players this season. Along with Walker, a cornerback who left the team midway through last season, they were part of a position group that has nicknamed themselves the “rude boys.”



Cover up, cover up, deny, deny, cover up. Continue cheating.

I have seen no evidence that UNC has any intention of changing the way they've done business for decades. It's a shame our schools have to ruin our good name by playing them every season. Carolina is everything wrong with college sports.

[arnie]

UNC just paid out $795k to the family of a kid beat up in an off-campus hazing incident two years ago. Four of the players involved served a one game suspension against Liberty. Three of the four are still enrolled at UNC and on the team in apparent violation of UNC system policies involving hazing and violence against fellow students.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article85089202.html





Cover up, cover up, deny, deny, cover up. Continue cheating.

I have seen no evidence that UNC has any intention of changing the way they've done business for decades. It's a shame our schools have to ruin our good name by playing them every season. Carolina is everything wrong with college sports.
And why should they change mode of operation as they've proven no authority will discipline them. If a child is never told "No" or disciplined, he/she continues down the same path.

[swood1000]

Well it did happen and yes, that the individuals participated in athletics is not the operative substance of SAC involvement (as previously acknowledged). They were admitted as students. They, irrespective of sports, were there to get an education. UNC, however, had other priorities. Not only did they not encourage and aide them in that endeavor, they stood in the way. Enter SAC. UNC knowingly, willfully, and given that they took it to unheard of extremes brazenly, participated in schemes in direct violation of principles long ago established by SAC. I stand by my second paragraph, for the reasons cited therein.

UNC cannot possibly have demonstrated that anything they may have done, whether of substance or not, has at this point effectively produced satisfactory results. Window dressing, even if legitimate, is nothing but that, window dressing; it is not the meat. They have publicly, as mentioned before, in numerous statements verbal, written, posted on official websites and through PR what they have done to address the charges made by SAC. It is there to see and has been exposed point by point. All in all, they have done nothing but repackage the rhetoric. SAC is derelict in accepting that UNC has complied. Failure to impose a second year of Probation in this case amounts to UNC receiving punishment to the equivalence of "lets take a time out". Note: Accreditation is not at stake, if I understand it correctly, until after a second year of Probation fails to produce satisfaction. So, accreditation shouldn't even be in the conversation.

Once again, the NCAA is not relevant here, however, many of the factors are appropriately legitimate for consideration by both.
The role of SACS is more like that of the CPA who has to sign off on the financial statements of a business. They'll check some random transactions but, with respect to embezzlement for example, they mainly want to see that systems and procedures are in place that will make embezzlement much more difficult to pull off undetected. In cases where embezzlement was found, and was enabled by weaknesses and vulnerabilities, the CPA will typically sign off on the financials as soon as reliable systems are put in place, without waiting to see if another embezzlement occurs (as long as the original embezzlers are no longer there).

The irony is that UNC got off by convincing the NCAA that the "embezzlement" problem was not limited to athletes but pervaded the entire institution and affected all students.

We are still waiting to see what results from the Title IV Program Review being conducted by the Dept. of Education. Title IV concerns federal loans and grants to students. UNC disclosed this in one section (http://www.unc.edu/sacs/March2016/Web_Public/Reports/FR%204.7.html) of its First Monitoring Report for SACS and said that the University will provide SACS with a copy of the Final Program Review Determination (FPRD) when it is issued. But I don't know if they have committed to releasing it to the general public.

[swood1000]

I've said it all a long - they're gonna skate. The NCAA doesn't have the, um, nerve...

-jk
I think it's pretty much a done deal that they're going to skate, if skate is defined as all MBB banners staying up, there having been no allegations of ineligible MBB players. It appears that the most that can be hoped for is loss of some postseason competition, to take place at a time when MBB will be lucky to even get into postseason competition.

[budwom]

"We are no longer doing those nefarious things we claim we never did."

[BigWayne]

N&O followed up today with an editorial on the Boyer incident. (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/editorials/article85392627.html)


The so-called hazing incident has been under wraps since it occurred. Police were not called at the time and the university provided no details of what happened. Apparently it was all supposed to go away with a sealed agreement and a big check.

This was clearly an incident that the public had a right to know about. How can the football program be held to account if violent, off-field encounters by players are not reported and, when discovered, not discussed?

[Ultrarunner]

Caught an article (http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/25/university-of-north-carolina-christmas-vacation-is-a-microagression-now/)that railed against speech codes at UNC. Said article may not have all the facts correct (http://campusreform.org/?ID=7751) (see update at the bottom), but finished with this paragraph:

The University of North Carolina is most famous, of course, because it perpetuated a sickening scam which involved 18 years of rampant academic fraud. The shocking con allowed dozens of athletes to deliberately enroll in fake classes for which they were awarded passing grades to keep them eligible for UNC’s sports teams.

I'm thinking this should be a mandatory statement of all things UNC. Given their defense seems to be, "So what, we cheated a whole lot of people, not just the athletes," it seems apropos.

[ricks68]

Just saw the cover of a lacrosse mag my nephews got today that called UNC the University of National Champions. That inspired me enough to come up with an alternative more accurate name: The University of Neverending Cheaters.

ricks

[DU82]

Just saw the cover of a lacrosse mag my nephews got today that called UNC the University of National Champions. That inspired me enough to come up with an alternative more accurate name: The University of Neverending Cheaters.

ricks

Sadly, there's a billboard in Mebane on I-40/85 that says the former (it includes the women's tennis champion as well.) It replaced the baseball billboard (and the women's basketball billboard before that; not a great streak of messages from the cheaters.)

[-jk]

Maybe we need to buy our own billboard - FUNC! Or something like that.

-jk

[devildeac]

Maybe we need to buy our own billboard - FUNC! Or something like that.

-jk

I'm in.

[madscavenger]

UNC the University of National Champions

More like the Breakfast of Champions

[OldPhiKap]

Georgia Southern gets two years probation, loss of 2 scholarships because 3 football players received impermissible academic assistance:

http://chronicle.augusta.com/sports/georgia-southern-sports/2016-07-07/georgia-southern-put-ncaa-probation?v=1467901954


I frankly turned off the UNC thing after the weak corrected NOA came out, so sorry if this has been mentioned. Have not read any of these threads since then.

[moonpie23]

scuttlebutt is that the NCAA will sanction UNC heavily with removing 3 snack machines from 2 of the athletic dorms.


they will fight it tooth and nail, but the NCAA will hold strong....



follow up soon

[OldPhiKap]

scuttlebutt is that the NCAA will sanction UNC heavily with removing 3 snack machines from 2 of the athletic dorms.


they will fight it tooth and nail, but the NCAA will hold strong...



follow up soon

Will Graves will not be able to choose "Ranch Dip Doritos" as option A-4 for the period of suspension too. Harsh.

[swood1000]

scuttlebutt is that the NCAA will sanction UNC heavily with removing 3 snack machines from 2 of the athletic dorms.


they will fight it tooth and nail, but the NCAA will hold strong...



follow up soon
Folks, we can rest easy. I have it on good authority that at least a private reprimand will be involved.

[moonpie23]

Will Graves will not be able to choose "Ranch Dip Doritos" as option A-4 for the period of suspension too. Harsh.

you can call it "harsh", but look.....they had to bring the hammer down...they didn't have a choice...

[NSDukeFan]

you can call it "harsh", but look....they had to bring the hammer down...they didn't have a choice...

Can the NCAA force the team to run extra sets of lines or is that too harsh?

[DukieInKansas]

Can the NCAA force the team to run extra sets of lines or is that too harsh?

No, but the NCAA will be picking the restaurant for all team meals. I hear The Angus Barn is our but Golden Coral is still on the table.

[arnie]

scuttlebutt is that the NCAA will sanction UNC heavily with removing 3 snack machines from 2 of the athletic dorms.


they will fight it tooth and nail, but the NCAA will hold strong...



follow up soon

Nope, according to Ray Felton's nephew (great point guard prospect) Roy has told his recruits the threat of sanctions "is over". I'm guessing NCAC apologizes for investigating the program.

[Pghdukie]

Send them our women's basketball coach.

[ricks68]

Send them our women's basketball coach.

Ouch!:eek:

ricks

[WiJoe]

Send them our women's basketball coach.

I'll second that

:p

[madscavenger]

Fine, as long as we get nothing in return.

[wavedukefan70s]

This probably has no buisness being posted.after a few beers i was and am watching Charlottes web.i get to the scene where the ram is correcting the goose on the spelling of terrific and about choked.maybe its the beer.

[ricks68]

This probably has no buisness being posted.after a few beers i was and am watching Charlottes web.i get to the scene where the ram is correcting the goose on the spelling of terrific and about choked.maybe its the beer.

After successfully translating the above submission, I can easily conclude that it is the beer.😊😊😊

ricks

[MarkD83]

I am still amazed how UNC managed to have men's basketball removed from the allegations but perhaps the reason why is now coming into focus.

If Swofford was negotiating with ESPN/Disney to have the ACC be part of the deal as described on the front page it starts to open a much wider market and income stream for the ACC AND the NCAA. Of course part of the appeal of the ACC "worldwide" is UNC men's basketball and perhaps the Duke/UNC basketball games in particular.

So, punish any other sport at UNC but don't touch the sports that Swofford is trying to market to ESPN/Disney. Of course this is also why ESPN would have tried to suppress coverage of the entire scandal.

[madscavenger]

The Honcho at ESPN; can't remember his name, but i'm pretty sure he is a UNC alum (maybe even went to classes too). In any case, the negotiating had to be fierce: Honch, Emmert, and Swofford - a real donnybrook.


6525