unc Files its Response

[hallcity]

UNC has filed its response to the NCAA (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/UNC-Response-to-2016-ANOA.pdf). It appears that UNC is digging in to fight EVERYTHING. If there were negotiations with the NCAA over this, they failed completely.

[martydoesntfoul]

In a nutshell upon first review:

We're bus-tossing Boxill, Nyang'oro and Crowder, all of whom are deplorable characters that refused to cooperate but nevertheless violated no NCAA rules and aren't here anymore regardless, and we have shored everything up in the meantime so there's nothing here to see, please move along, and pretend none of this ever happened.

[budwom]

^ that's right, once again, "we are no longer doing the things we claimed we never did."

[hallcity]

Andy Katz ‏@ESPNAndyKatz 6m6 minutes ago

UNC AD Bubba Cunningham says in response to Q on self-imposed penalties:"in this case we're not there yet on self imposing any penalties."

"Not there yet." What could that mean? Still negotiating?

[GGLC]

I hate them so much.

[77devil]

UNC has filed its response to the NCAA (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/UNC-Response-to-2016-ANOA.pdf). It appears that UNC is digging in to fight EVERYTHING. If there were negotiations with the NCAA over this, they failed completely.

Money quote:


For these reasons, the University believes that any administrative failure with respect to the AFRI-AFAM
Department is not a violation of NCAA rules. The Department is an academic unit of the larger
University and the appropriate review of such an academic unit is properly under the jurisdiction of the
University and its academic accrediting agency, SACSCOC, and not for scrutiny by way of the NCAA
infractions process.

In other words, we set up a cheating scam for 18+ years for the sole purpose of keeping athletes eligible but you have no say. Further, we are not in a position self administer any penalties.(see section IV, conclusion)
So the question is will the infractions committee takes umbrage with arrogance and dishonesty of the response or roll over and simply penalize women's basketball?

[PackMan97]

Well, I guess the fact that over span of three decades UNC really didn't have thousands of athletes enrolled in fake classes so they could remain eligilbe and/or spend more time on their sport.

Glad that's cleared up.

[weezie]

"Not there yet." What could that mean? Still negotiating?

Haha, hardly. It means that they refuse, REFUSE, to go stand in the corner with their face to the wall, not even for a second!
No, no, no and now they are escalating to the tantrum stage. :mad:

Such lowlife, unwashed, dishonorable, classless sludgesuckers...
And this, from above

"For these reasons, the University believes that any administrative failure with respect to the AFRI-AFAM
Department is not a violation of NCAA rules. The Department is an academic unit of the larger
University and the appropriate review of such an academic unit is properly under the jurisdiction of the
University and its academic accrediting agency, SACSCOC, and not for scrutiny by way of the NCAA
infractions process."

is a hot steaming load of humina,humina, whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop.

[devildeac]

Money quote:



In other words, we set up a cheating scam for 18+ years for the sole purpose of keeping athletes eligible but you have no say. Further, we are not in a position self administer any penalties.(see section IV, conclusion)
So the question is will the infractions committee takes umbrage with arrogance and dishonesty of the response or roll over and simply penalize women's basketball?

Not to mention that it occurred in philosophy, exercise and sports science, geology and maybe one or 2 other "departments."

What a bunch of lying, cheating, dishonest, dismissive, despicable arrogant bastards.

[devildeac]

Haha, hardly. It means that they refuse, REFUSE, to go stand in the corner with their face to the wall, not even for a second!
No, no, no and now they are escalating to the tantrum stage. :mad:

Such lowlife, unwashed, dishonorable, classless sludgesuckers...
And this, from above

"For these reasons, the University believes that any administrative failure with respect to the AFRI-AFAM
Department is not a violation of NCAA rules. The Department is an academic unit of the larger
University and the appropriate review of such an academic unit is properly under the jurisdiction of the
University and its academic accrediting agency, SACSCOC, and not for scrutiny by way of the NCAA
infractions process."

is a hot steaming load of humina,humina, whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop.

I'm damned proud to share a cherished spot on Mt. Hatemore with this esteemed poster.

[moonpie23]

could this piss off the infractions committee?.....

[PackMan97]

I'm damned proud to share a cherished spot on Mt. Hatemore with this esteemed poster.

Hate offers no rewards. Hate gives no solace. Hate does not make one proud. Hate is the darkness from which light can not escape. You my friend are letting it slip.

[Tommac]

When I use to work for a defense contractor in the 80's and 90's we called such a response "shining the turd." We had to employ such responses from time to time and they hardly ever worked.

[PackMan97]

IV. CONCLUSION
This Response reflects the University’s strong commitment to honor its obligations as an NCAA member institution, and it follows years of close cooperation and productive discussion with the enforcement staff. The University has confidence that the hearing panel will consider this information carefully and looks forward to the opportunity to discuss these issues with the hearing panel.

In the interim, this case’s jurisdictional and procedural issues make it difficult for the University to assign appropriate penalties for the alleged violations. If the hearing panel determines that penalties are to be imposed, the University believes that they must be tied directly to a particular violation of NCAA bylaws and, in all instances, must be applied in a fair and consistent manner. It would be an unprecedented application of NCAA rules to impose a penalty on institutional employees, student-athletes, or sport programs that are not the subject of, or even referenced in, an allegation in the ANOA.

The University acknowledges its ultimate responsibility for the past events on its campus, and it has made enormous investments to address them. A summary of the University’s corrective measures appears in its Response to Supplemental question 3, and comprehensive information about its more than 70 reforms and initiatives may be found at carolinacommitment.unc.edu. It has emerged from this ordeal as a stronger institution.


The more I read, the more I hate. It is a shame that either of our honorable athletic programs will be sullied by playing in their filth during this upcoming athletics season.

[BigWayne]

could this piss off the infractions committee?....

I certainly hope so. While we all are used to the steaming pile of arrogance emanating from Orange County, the level exhibited in this piece of sophism is so profound that the COI members should feel insulted by it and take retribution.

[martydoesntfoul]

could this piss off the infractions committee?....

Or part of a pre-planned, coordinated effort to design a way for both sides to exit the scandal without jumping into the cesspool?

[devildeac]

Hate offers no rewards. Hate gives no solace. Hate does not make one proud. Hate is the darkness from which light can not escape. You my friend are letting it slip.


The more I read, the more I hate. It is a shame that either of our honorable athletic programs will be sullied by playing in their filth during this upcoming athletics season.

What'd you post about hate? ;)

Weezie and I will wave to you graciously as you pass by this mythical Mt.

[WiJoe]

They are the scummiest of scumbags.

[plimnko]

they skated almost, if not easier than michael nifong. BOTH are liars and cheaters!
i guess k-mart will start selling turd heel shirts again.

[hudlow]

This response seems more like an industry's denial to The EPA after getting caught dumping hazardous waste into a river.

[Olympic Fan]

Basically, UNC is saying “Yeah, we had academic issues, but (1) we’ve fixed the problems; (2) the NCAA doesn’t have jurisdiction over academics, (3) the statute of limitations has run out, and (4) what we did is not that bad – just level 2 or level 3 violations."

The UNC response admits that Allegation 2 and 3 – both charging Level One violations – are true, but claims they can’t compel Crowder and Nyang’oro to cooperate. I have two issues with this – first, both were allowed to retire with full benefits before talking to the NCAA, which seems to be a pattern in UNC’s recent NCAA issues – both Butch Davis and Black Santa were allowed to retire with benefits and no requirement that they cooperate with the NCAA (When Jim Tressel had his issue at Ohio State, he was only allowed to retire with benefits if he DID cooperate with the NCAA). Secondly, didn’t both Crowder and Nyang’oro escape prosecution for their roles with the promise that they cooperate with investigators? Did that cooperation only extend to the Wainstein Report?

As for Allegation Four, UNC tries to dismiss that charge on a technicality (basically, the statute of limitations), but admits the charge is true ... but claims its just a Level Two violation. I don’t know about that, but one question. Wasn’t UNC put on probation in 2011 for Failure to Monitor issues. So they are claiming their penalty should be lessened because they made the same mistake in this instance?

UNC dismisses Allegation Five by basically saying that monitoring academic issues is not the NCAA’s business.

I’m obviously not a good person to talk about this – I’m obviously biased. How a scam started to help basketball and then football players morph into this – in which neither of these sports is mentioned – is beyond me. But the brazzeness of UNC’s denial of responsibility for the mess is breathtaking. And what the heck happened to the information in the Wainstein Report? That was a UNC sponsored investigation ... how were large parts of it was it swept under the rug?

The first NOA was closer to the truth. The NCAA cut UNC a HUGE break with the amended NOA, basically cutting any mention of men's basketball and football. Apparently, that's still not enough. We'll see what happens when UNC comes up before the committee on infractions. It will be interesting.

If I can guess (and after my earlier wrong guesses I don't know why anybody would care what I guess), I think the University as a whole is facing some major penalties-- but in the realm of a large monetary penalty and a university-wide probation. Based on the amended NOA, I think the only sport that will face specific penalties is women's basketball. Outrageous, I know, but still, that's what it looks like to me now.

[weezie]

Hate offers no rewards. Hate gives no solace. Hate does not make one proud. Hate is the darkness from which light can not escape. You my friend are letting it slip.

Now that's where you're wrong when it comes to all things tarholian. The hate that keeps on growing.

Plus the disgust. Sneering disgust.

[martydoesntfoul]

This response seems more like an industry's denial to The EPA after getting caught dumping hazardous waste into a river.

I think you may be on to something.

From this point forward I shall now refer to this shameful institution as UNC-HW.

Who is with me?

[Devil2]

Yes, the promise applied only to Wainstein. UNC had some control over the Wainstein's report ,but they realized that it would have been the kiss of death if the two cooperated with the NCAA.

I am not a lawyer and would be interested how good a defense the statute of limitations argument is. As JUlien King points out, much of the delay was attributable to UNC refusing to cooperate.


Basically, UNC is saying “Yeah, we had academic issues, but (1) we’ve fixed the problems; (2) the NCAA doesn’t have jurisdiction over academics, (3) the statute of limitations has run out, and (4) what we did is not that bad – just level 2 or level 3 violations."

The UNC response admits that Allegation 2 and 3 – both charging Level One violations – are true, but claims they can’t compel Crowder and Nyang’oro to cooperate. I have two issues with this – first, both were allowed to retire with full benefits before talking to the NCAA, which seems to be a pattern in UNC’s recent NCAA issues – both Butch Davis and Black Santa were allowed to retire with benefits and no requirement that they cooperate with the NCAA (When Jim Tressel had his issue at Ohio State, he was only allowed to retire with benefits if he DID cooperate with the NCAA). Secondly, didn’t both Crowder and Nyang’oro escape prosecution for their roles with the promise that they cooperate with investigators? Did that cooperation only extend to the Wainstein Report?

As for Allegation Four, UNC tries to dismiss that charge on a technicality (basically, the statute of limitations), but admits the charge is true ... but claims its just a Level Two violation. I don’t know about that, but one question. Wasn’t UNC put on probation in 2011 for Failure to Monitor issues. So they are claiming their penalty should be lessened because they made the same mistake in this instance?

UNC dismisses Allegation Five by basically saying that monitoring academic issues is not the NCAA’s business.

I’m obviously not a good person to talk about this – I’m obviously biased. How a scam started to help basketball and then football players morph into this – in which neither of these sports is mentioned – is beyond me. But the brazzeness of UNC’s denial of responsibility for the mess is breathtaking. And what the heck happened to the information in the Wainstein Report? That was a UNC sponsored investigation ... how were large parts of it was it swept under the rug?

The first NOA was closer to the truth. The NCAA cut UNC a HUGE break with the amended NOA, basically cutting any mention of men's basketball and football. Apparently, that's still not enough. We'll see what happens when UNC comes up before the committee on infractions. It will be interesting.

If I can guess (and after my earlier wrong guesses I don't know why anybody would care what I guess), I think the University as a whole is facing some major penalties-- but in the realm of a large monetary penalty and a university-wide probation. Based on the amended NOA, I think the only sport that will face specific penalties is women's basketball. Outrageous, I know, but still, that's what it looks like to me now.

[Kedsy]

I am not a lawyer and would be interested how good a defense the statute of limitations argument is.

In legal circles, the statute of limitations is tolled when the complaint is filed. In many cases, it is also tolled if the defendant fraudulently covers up the actionable behavior, up until the complainant learns of the acts. I have no idea how these principles would affect an NCAA action.

[GGLC]

They're going to skate completely when it's all said and done. I guarantee it.

[fuse]

Anyone surprised or disappointed with the latest on this topic clearly has not been paying attention.

[NSDukeFan]

Anyone surprised or disappointed with the latest on this topic clearly has not been paying attention.

You could be not surprised but continue to be disappointed.

[martydoesntfoul]

Terribly depressing piece from Luke DeCock:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article93352282.html

Above it all hangs the existential question of the NCAA’s very mission, one it has never been able to adequately answer: Can it really claim any jurisdiction over academics?

North Carolina’s response is essentially an ultimatum to the NCAA to answer that question, because it knows the answer has to be “no.”

[OldPhiKap]

UNC has better lawyers than the NCAA does.

Game, blouses.

[martydoesntfoul]

UNC has better lawyers than the NCAA does.

Game, blouses.

Including ex-NCAA lawyers. And one wonders where populism comes from... the system is indeed rigged.

[sagegrouse]

Including ex-NCAA lawyers. And one wonders where populism comes from... the system is indeed rigged.

To this and all the past five or six pessimistic posts, I sat, "Meh." The NCAA Committee on Infractions (and the appeals panel) has immense power, in that UNC has agreed to be bound by its results. Of course, UNC has a stirring defense, but much of it is besides the point. For one example, the head of the faculty and the sports ethic center was in thie business of providing impermissible up to her neck. The fact that Boxill has been fired doesn't erase the violations. The statute of limitations appear to be hogwash, in that charges were filed in a timely manner but final action stretched out by UNC. Etc. etc...

[martydoesntfoul]

To this and all the past five or six pessimistic posts, I sat, "Meh." The NCAA Committee on Infractions (and the appeals panel) has immense power, in that UNC has agreed to be bound by its results. Of course, UNC has a stirring defense, but much of it is besides the point. For one example, the head of the faculty and the sports ethic center was in thie business of providing impermissible up to her neck. The fact that Boxill has been fired doesn't erase the violations. The statute of limitations appear to be hogwash, in that charges were filed in a timely manner but final action stretched out by UNC. Etc. etc...

I sure hope you're right. Sometimes the contrarian bet can pay off big. If the COI fears NCAA irrelevance by whitewashing the scandal, and if it's offended by UNC-HW's response, then maybe we'll see something. But it could just as easily say too bad this time, but the good news is stricter rules are now in place.

[TampaDuke]

Seems to me UNC's response was the best we could hope for. They're basically admitting to cheating while telling the NCAA, you can't do anything about it. If there is any hope of the NCAA taking appropriate action after the whitewashed amended NOA, the response may be the only thing that could have spurred the NCAA into action.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the NCAA will do anything of note, but the "in your face" nature of UNC's response should at least get them thinking.

[TampaDuke]

I sure hope you're right. Sometimes the contrarian bet can pay off big. If the COI fears NCAA irrelevance by whitewashing the scandal, and if it's offended by UNC-HW's response, then maybe we'll see something. But it could just as easily say too bad this time, but the good news is stricter rules are now in place.

I suspect you're right. While I'm not big on conspiracy theories, the timing of UNC's delays, the announcement of new rules, the NCAA comments about the "deficiencies" in the old rules, and the release of the amended NOA certainly suggests that it's all part of paving a soft landing for UNC to get out of the most egregious sanctions. If that's true, though, it's hard to imagine why UNC would be so brash in its response. Heck, I don't even think Miami thumbed it's nose like this when it was let off the hook for massive infractions the last time the NCAA found that it's rules and procedures were deficient.

[Rickshaw]

The NCAA should go ahead and punish unc (severely) and fight the law suit..................if they do nothing, the NCAA is going down anyway.

[wilko]

S'ok cuz if the Gutless Wonder (aka NCAA) doesn't go HARDLINE on this, they neuter themselves and become pretty much irrelevant.

Forget the actual deeds themselves ... They need to be punished for the unforgivable sin of being caught. That's what it comes down to.

If this skates... then its pretty much open season for everyone to cheat as much as they want.

If the game is open cheating w/o penalty... F school pride. Offer player x 5k to make a bad pass, or miss a FT... so a lot of guys in Vegas make bank and what does the school or its fans get? There's no point to that. I'm not watching that.

[heyman25]

Mark Emmert of NCAA may surprise us, but I doubt it.He is another disappointing person holding too much power. http://www.espn.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/86236/cash-rules-everything-around-mark-emmert

[rocketeli]

The NCAA should go ahead and punish unc (severely) and fight the law suit..........if they do nothing, the NCAA is going down anyway.

Everyone seems to be acting as if the NCAA was a court of law or a government agency. It's not. It's a private club that members decided to join. If the NCAA has any brains they'll see that Rickshaw hit the nail on the head--if they don't act, then every subsequent attempt to punish a program will play out this way and their enforcement will be a complete joke. And if they are smart, they will simply say "enough if enough you joined this club of your own free will and you are suspended from all club activities, effective immediately."

[PackMan97]

S'ok cuz if the Gutless Wonder (aka NCAA) doesn't go HARDLINE on this, they neuter themselves and become pretty much irrelevant.

Forget the actual deeds themselves ... They need to be punished for the unforgivable sin of being caught. That's what it comes down to.

If this skates... then its pretty much open season for everyone to cheat as much as they want.

If the game is open cheating w/o penalty... F school pride. Offer player x 5k to make a bad pass, or miss a FT... so a lot of guys in Vegas make bank and what does the school or its fans get? There's no point to that. I'm not watching that.

Don't forget that the NCAA is facing a lawsuit concerning paying athletes and has always claimed that an education is part of the bargain. I think if they let UNC skate on a technicality it's going to really hurt them in that court case. Of course, I've thought lots of different things over the years of this scandal.

[oldnavy]

Everyone seems to be acting as if the NCAA was a court of law or a government agency. It's not. It's a private club that members decided to join. If the NCAA has any brains they'll see that Rickshaw hit the nail on the head--if they don't act, then every subsequent attempt to punish a program will play out this way and their enforcement will be a complete joke. And if they are smart, they will simply say "enough if enough you joined this club of your own free will and you are suspended from all club activities, effective immediately."

IANAL but don't the courts usually abstain from ruling on collective bargaining cases, and isn't membership in the NCAA basically a collective bargaining setup?

[Avvocato]

While I am hoping for the best (NCAA coming down hard on UNC), I am prepared for the worst. With that said, even if the NCAA lets UNC skate, I hope they publicly rip them. Basically, something to the extent of while their hands are tied, they believe UNC's actions are egregious, etc. Since I'm not expecting much in actual penalties, I'm hoping to at least get some good public shaming.

[TampaDuke]

While I am hoping for the best (NCAA coming down hard on UNC), I am prepared for the worst. With that said, even if the NCAA lets UNC skate, I hope they publicly rip them. Basically, something to the extent of while their hands are tied, they believe UNC's actions are egregious, etc. Since I'm not expecting much in actual penalties, I'm hoping to at least get some good public shaming.

Likewise, should they let UNC skate, I hope everybody else publicly rips the NCAA. ESPN won't, but maybe everybody else will.

[jipops]

I know this is pretty much Utopian and overly-simplistic, but here is what I believe is the best thing the NCAA could do at this point:

Calculate all of the profits or even revenue generated over the 18 year period in question that directly involve unc's fraudulent football and basketball programs. Pool all of that money to provide academic scholarships and grants for African Americans. The exploitation that has taken place here is absolutely disgusting. In some way, this would be an actual reparation, just not to the individuals that were exploited. "u"nc is a lost cause when it comes to integrity. But the NCAA still has opportunities to actually make itself relevant in this area. There are heavy doubts they will take any though.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I know this is pretty much Utopian and overly-simplistic, but here is what I believe is the best thing the NCAA could do at this point:

Calculate all of the profits or even revenue generated over the 18 year period in question that directly involve unc's fraudulent football and basketball programs. Pool all of that money to provide academic scholarships and grants for African Americans. The exploitation that has taken place here is absolutely disgusting. In some way, this would be an actual reparation, just not to the individuals that were exploited. "u"nc is a lost cause when it comes to integrity. But the NCAA still has opportunities to actually make itself relevant in this area. There are heavy doubts they will take any though.
I'm actually shocked that no activist group has picked up on the exploitation theme here and made a stand. It's not like this is just a bunch of accusation. The W report proved what happened. And the fact that UNC-Cheat says it's just an academic thing doesn't change the fact that all those athletes (disproportionately African American) were used and bamboozled and denied the full education they were supposed to receive.

[arnie]

I'm actually shocked that no activist group has picked up on the exploitation theme here and made a stand. It's not like this is just a bunch of accusation. The W report proved what happened. And the fact that UNC-Cheat says it's just an academic thing doesn't change the fact that all those athletes (disproportionately African American) were used and bamboozled and denied the full education they were supposed to receive.

Dead on comment. Yet Carolina seems exempt from that type of critique. The activists go after traditional targets, but are missing this exploitation. The lying PR campaign run by Carolina Way is insanely predictable but successful, particularly in the Triangle.

[plimnko]

Dead on comment. Yet Carolina seems exempt from that type of critique. The activists go after traditional targets, but are missing this exploitation. The lying PR campaign run by Carolina Way is insanely predictable but successful, particularly in the Triangle.

ESPECIALLY successful with pinheads in light blue

[rasputin]

ESPECIALLY successful with pinheads in light blue

Is that like the Force having a strong influence on the weak-minded?

[moonpie23]

With that said, even if the NCAA lets UNC skate, I hope they publicly rip them. I'm hoping to at least get some good public shaming.


Likewise, should they let UNC skate, I hope everybody else publicly rips the NCAA. ESPN won't, but maybe everybody else will.

should this be the case, Unc would have no choice other than to pull out the big guns!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQfhk-4ayt0)

[MarkD83]

Everyone seems to be acting as if the NCAA was a court of law or a government agency. It's not. It's a private club that members decided to join. If the NCAA has any brains they'll see that Rickshaw hit the nail on the head--if they don't act, then every subsequent attempt to punish a program will play out this way and their enforcement will be a complete joke. And if they are smart, they will simply say "enough if enough you joined this club of your own free will and you are suspended from all club activities, effective immediately."

This is assuming that UNC and the NCAA are adversaries in this issue. I am beginning to be convinced that the ACC TV deal has some major money being feed back to the NCAA. As part of that "kick-back", UNC (and the ACC commish with ties to UNC) went to the NCAA last year and said how can we mutually get out of this situation.

The amended NOA was the first step, the time delays were part of opening up the "statute of limitations" get out of jail free card. I am now seeing a highly plausible response from the NCAA where several of the allegations are dropped so that the COI only gets to rule on the two non-cooperation allegations.

Going forward the NCAA does not care about other members doing the same thing. In fact they probably would like all universities to take this same path so the NCAA can concentrate on revenue generation and not policing their membership.

[Jarhead]

This is assuming that UNC and the NCAA are adversaries in this issue. I am beginning to be convinced that the ACC TV deal has some major money being feed back to the NCAA. As part of that "kick-back", UNC (and the ACC commish with ties to UNC) went to the NCAA last year and said how can we mutually get out of this situation.

The amended NOA was the first step, the time delays were part of opening up the "statute of limitations" get out of jail free card. I am now seeing a highly plausible response from the NCAA where several of the allegations are dropped so that the COI only gets to rule on the two non-cooperation allegations.

Going forward the NCAA does not care about other members doing the same thing. In fact they probably would like all universities to take this same path so the NCAA can concentrate on revenue generation and not policing their membership.
Any organization that has policies, but no means to regulate them or their membership, will fail.

[DukePA]

I know this is pretty much Utopian and overly-simplistic, but here is what I believe is the best thing the NCAA could do at this point:

Calculate all of the profits or even revenue generated over the 18 year period in question that directly involve unc's fraudulent football and basketball programs. Pool all of that money to provide academic scholarships and grants for African Americans. The exploitation that has taken place here is absolutely disgusting. In some way, this would be an actual reparation, just not to the individuals that were exploited. "u"nc is a lost cause when it comes to integrity. But the NCAA still has opportunities to actually make itself relevant in this area. There are heavy doubts they will take any though.

That would be amazing!

[SoCalDukeFan]

Has the NCAA not acted on academic issues in the past?

If athletes in sham classes are allowed to play, then why have any academic requirement at all?

So if an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in - Syracuse.
But if an athlete takes a fake class and does nothing, thats not a problem for the NCAA?

SoCal

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Has the NCAA not acted on academic issues in the past?

If athletes in sham classes are allowed to play, then why have any academic requirement at all?

So if an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in - Syracuse.
But if an athlete takes a fake class and does nothing, thats not a problem for the NCAA?

SoCal
Yeah but set aside the fake class thing for a minute. Grades were changed, signatures falsified, "students" allowed to enroll in classes very late, etc., etc. So what happened with all of that stuff? Fake classes or not, all the other stuff seems to have just been swept under the rug.

And maybe therein lies the "genius" of the cheaters... Dupe everyone into going for the really big issues. Then get your lawyers to pull the rug out. And all the "little" stuff is long forgotten.

[gep]

Has the NCAA not acted on academic issues in the past?

If athletes in sham classes are allowed to play, then why have any academic requirement at all?

So if an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in - Syracuse.
But if an athlete takes a fake class and does nothing, thats not a problem for the NCAA?

SoCal

I thought the Academic Progress Rate (APR) was instituted by the NCAA. If so, doesn't the NCAA then "care" about academics? If so, academics should be in their "jurisdiction"? :confused:

[plimnko]

Is that like the Force having a strong influence on the weak-minded?

isn't more like the FARCE?

[NSDukeFan]

should this be the case, Unc would have no choice other than to pull out the big guns!!! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQfhk-4ayt0)

Hasn't UNC basically been doing that all along?

[andyw715]

'Cuse fan here, so I'm not one to cast stones.

But, what I have learned is that

The NCAA doesn't care if you take fake African History classes
The NCAA does care if you take History classes in Africa (1)

I'm sure Boeheim will have more additional wins vacated to compensate for UNC's transgressions.


(1) http://www.njherald.com/story/29859272/pope-johns-diagne-in-limbo-over-transcripts#

[Saratoga2]

Yeah but set aside the fake class thing for a minute. Grades were changed, signatures falsified, "students" allowed to enroll in classes very late, etc., etc. So what happened with all of that stuff? Fake classes or not, all the other stuff seems to have just been swept under the rug.

And maybe therein lies the "genius" of the cheaters... Dupe everyone into going for the really big issues. Then get your lawyers to pull the rug out. And all the "little" stuff is long forgotten.

It kind of like politics, when knowingly criminal acts are attributed to carelessness as just mistakes that don't really require punishment.

[porcophile]

Hasn't UNC basically been doing that all along?
All that high-priced legal talent?

[ricks68]

Does anyone have any info on when the COI might come out with some feedback on this garbage?

ricks

[budwom]

Does anyone have any info on when the COI might come out with some feedback on this garbage?

ricks

I read somewhere they're apt to meet (COI) in October. I wonder if they'll be content to (continue to) look like neutered idiots.

[Rich]

Has the NCAA not acted on academic issues in the past?

If athletes in sham classes are allowed to play, then why have any academic requirement at all?

So if an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in - Syracuse.
But if an athlete takes a fake class and does nothing, thats not a problem for the NCAA?

SoCal

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is overly rudimentary, but UNC is claiming that an athlete taking a fake class is not an issue for the NCAA as long as that fake class is also offered to other students. In that case, the athletes have not "impermissibly benefitted" from the offering of the fake class and it's an academic issue handled by the school, not an NCAA issue concerning the athletic program. If an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in because it's an impermissible benefit only offered to the athlete. I suppose if Syracuse had people writing papers for all the students they'd be in the clear with respect to the NCAA. That's my take, anyway.

[devildeac]

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is overly rudimentary, but UNC is claiming that an athlete taking a fake class is not an issue for the NCAA as long as that fake class is also offered to other students. In that case, the athletes have not "impermissibly benefitted" from the offering of the fake class and it's an academic issue handled by the school, not an NCAA issue concerning the athletic program. If an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in because it's an impermissible benefit only offered to the athlete. I suppose if Syracuse had people writing papers for all the students they'd be in the clear with respect to the NCAA. That's my take, anyway.

And, somewhere in Louisville, members of the AD are crying because their "benefits' (cough) weren't made available to the general student body. :o:rolleyes:

[martydoesntfoul]

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is overly rudimentary, but UNC is claiming that an athlete taking a fake class is not an issue for the NCAA as long as that fake class is also offered to other students. In that case, the athletes have not "impermissibly benefitted" from the offering of the fake class and it's an academic issue handled by the school, not an NCAA issue concerning the athletic program. If an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in because it's an impermissible benefit only offered to the athlete. I suppose if Syracuse had people writing papers for all the students they'd be in the clear with respect to the NCAA. That's my take, anyway.

Exactly. Regular students were given access so this defense could be used. Heavy-handed. Revolting. And to this point highly successful.

[martydoesntfoul]

Brilliant takedown comment i/r/t the Jacobs' N&O piece:

Years ago, when my children were caught in wrong-doing and the time came to face the consequences or punishments, they inevitably cried “It’s not fair!” while elaborating on a long list of excuses as to why their bad behavior should either be ignored, condoned, or left unpenalized. I expect such behavior from kids, but not from a university that once touted itself as a “public Ivy” and as purveyors of “The Carolina Way.”

[Moderator note: paragraphs redacted due to copyright infringment]

“The Carolina Way”, if it ever really existed, is truly dead and gone forever.

[75Crazie]

“The Carolina Way”, if it ever really existed, is truly dead and gone forever.
I submit that it still exists, and in the same form it has always existed. It just does not represent what most people claim it represents.

[plimnko]

Perhaps my understanding of the situation is overly rudimentary, but UNC is claiming that an athlete taking a fake class is not an issue for the NCAA as long as that fake class is also offered to other students. In that case, the athletes have not "impermissibly benefitted" from the offering of the fake class and it's an academic issue handled by the school, not an NCAA issue concerning the athletic program. If an athlete takes a real class and someone writes a paper for him, then the NCAA steps in because it's an impermissible benefit only offered to the athlete. I suppose if Syracuse had people writing papers for all the students they'd be in the clear with respect to the NCAA. That's my take, anyway.

If your rudimentary understanding, which matches mine, is correct......WHAT"S THE VALUE OF A DIPLOMA FROM UNC?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Here's another take on all this from the Robesonian editorial (http://robesonian.com/opinion/90372/unc-finally-goes-on-defense-against-ncaa).

From the editorial...

"....What Cunningham didn’t mention as part of the penalty already paid was six years of largely inaccurate media coverage, which the university’s athletics programs, especially the money-making football and men’s basketball teams, have weathered remarkably well. But that coverage established a false narrative that continues to this day — and is why those paying attention part-time expect UNC to get the electric chair.

Except no, the African and Afro-American Studies Department that disproportionately attracted athletes to its classes was not created to keep them eligible to compete. And no, not a single UNC coach has been shown to have steered a student into the AFAM classes or to ask that a change of a grade be made to keep an athlete on the field or court. And no, not a single coach or anyone else tied to UNC’s athletics program has even been accused of providing a recruit a benefit if they would sign the dotted line to bring their skills to the Chapel Hill campus.

If any of that had happened, then one or more of the nearly double-digit investigations would have revealed it given the access university officials provided, especially to emails."

[arnie]

Here's another take on all this from the Robesonian editorial (http://robesonian.com/opinion/90372/unc-finally-goes-on-defense-against-ncaa).

From the editorial...

"...What Cunningham didn’t mention as part of the penalty already paid was six years of largely inaccurate media coverage, which the university’s athletics programs, especially the money-making football and men’s basketball teams, have weathered remarkably well. But that coverage established a false narrative that continues to this day — and is why those paying attention part-time expect UNC to get the electric chair.

Except no, the African and Afro-American Studies Department that disproportionately attracted athletes to its classes was not created to keep them eligible to compete. And no, not a single UNC coach has been shown to have steered a student into the AFAM classes or to ask that a change of a grade be made to keep an athlete on the field or court. And no, not a single coach or anyone else tied to UNC’s athletics program has even been accused of providing a recruit a benefit if they would sign the dotted line to bring their skills to the Chapel Hill campus.

If any of that had happened, then one or more of the nearly double-digit investigations would have revealed it given the access university officials provided, especially to emails."

NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Robesonian, Art Chansky's Cat. I guess Wheat considers all sources/opinions equal.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Robesonian, Art Chansky's Cat. I guess Wheat considers all sources/opinions equal.

I'm making no judgement, just providing a link to an alternate viewpoint for the board to consider.

[devildeac]

I'm making no judgement, just providing a link to an alternate viewpoint for the board to consider.

That's not an alternative viewpoint, that's more of the multi-million dollar unc-cheat PR machine garbage spouted through Bubba's lying lips. Again.

[devildeac]

Brilliant takedown comment i/r/t the Jacobs' N&O piece:

Years ago, when my children were caught in wrong-doing and the time came to face the consequences or punishments, they inevitably cried “It’s not fair!” while elaborating on a long list of excuses as to why their bad behavior should either be ignored, condoned, or left unpenalized. I expect such behavior from kids, but not from a university that once touted itself as a “public Ivy” and as purveyors of “The Carolina Way.”

[Moderator's note: text redacted due to copyright infringement]

“The Carolina Way”, if it ever really existed, is truly dead and gone forever.

Here's the link to the Barry Jacob piece marty mentions in his post:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article93608927.html

Money quote from Tom Yeager, former 9 year member of the COI and 3 years its chair:

...As the university and its legal team portrayed the situation, all that was broken is fixed. Malefactors were removed and safeguards put in place. After much angst, the university’s academic accrediting agency, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, pronounced itself satisfied with reforms at UNC.

Case closed.

“That’s like saying, we doubled the padlock on the door,” protested Tom Yeager, formerly a member of the NCAA Committee on Infractions for nine years and for three years its chair. “It doesn’t negate the fact that there was a bank robbery before that time.”

[Stray Gator]

Here's another take on all this from the Robesonian editorial (http://robesonian.com/opinion/90372/unc-finally-goes-on-defense-against-ncaa).

From the editorial...

"...What Cunningham didn’t mention as part of the penalty already paid was six years of largely inaccurate media coverage, which the university’s athletics programs, especially the money-making football and men’s basketball teams, have weathered remarkably well. But that coverage established a false narrative that continues to this day — and is why those paying attention part-time expect UNC to get the electric chair.

Except no, the African and Afro-American Studies Department that disproportionately attracted athletes to its classes was not created to keep them eligible to compete. And no, not a single UNC coach has been shown to have steered a student into the AFAM classes or to ask that a change of a grade be made to keep an athlete on the field or court. And no, not a single coach or anyone else tied to UNC’s athletics program has even been accused of providing a recruit a benefit if they would sign the dotted line to bring their skills to the Chapel Hill campus.

If any of that had happened, then one or more of the nearly double-digit investigations would have revealed it given the access university officials provided, especially to emails."

Wheat,

I thought that you had vowed to confine your comments to the subject of basketball, and not venture into the issues regarding UNC's academic/athletic fraud scandal. But since you've elected to offer this "take" from The Robesonian in defense of UNC's position, I hope that you recognize the transparently laughable spin in this craftily worded editorial:

1. The fact that the AFAM Department wasn't "created to keep [athletes] eligible to compete" is immaterial, when the facts established by UNC's own records, as evidenced by the attachments to the Wainstein Report and additional documents that have since been made public, conclusively prove that the AFAM Department -- and certain courses in several other departments at UNC -- were knowingly and deliberately misused by the members of the support staff to ensure that athletes remained eligible, either by requiring little or no legitimate academic work of the athletes, or by manipulating their grades, or by allowing them to drop or add courses to avoid impending failure.

2. The fact that "not a single UNC coach has been shown to have steered a student into the AFAM classes or to ask that a change of a grade be made to keep an athlete on the field or court" is immaterial, when the facts established by UNC's own records, as evidenced by the attachments to the Wainstein Report and additional documents that have since been made public, conclusively prove that members of the support staff -- and in some cases even high-ranking academic faculty -- did steer athletes into those AFAM (and other) fraudulent courses, and did change grades for athletes (and facilitate the dropping or adding of courses by athletes without complying with the normal time limits and procedures).

3. The fact that "not a single coach or anyone else tied to UNC’s athletics program has even been accused of providing a recruit a benefit if they would sign the dotted line to bring their skills to the Chapel Hill campus" is immaterial, when the facts established by UNC's own records, as evidenced by the attachments to the Wainstein Report and additional documents that have since been made public, conclusively prove that such benefits were provided to athletes by others outside the athletics department with the objective of aiding UNC athletics. The sickening irony in this "defense" is that UNC's coaches, including Roy Williams, readily admit that they promise every recruited athlete the benefit of a college education -- a benefit which the record shows (and some of UNC's former athletes have complained) was in fact denied to them, or at least made more difficult for them to obtain, because they were directed or "advised" to take courses that lacked any genuine academic content.

That UNC officials and supporters persist in their attempts to obscure the gravity of this decades-long pattern of misconduct by clinging to technical distinctions and employing diversionary semantics is nothing short of disgraceful. I have family members and lifelong friends who attended UNC-CH, and I always understood and appreciated the pride they took in having earned a degree from an institution that was renowned for academic excellence and integrity. Now I can only feel sad for them, because their achievement is being retroactively devalued by a shameless group of administrators and athletic boosters who are haughtily thumbing their nose at the NCAA and the public, proclaiming in effect:

Even though a scheme to fraudulently maintain the eligibility of athletes was in fact implemented and perpetuated at UNC for decades, with the result that many of our teams competed unfairly, there's nothing you can do about it, because (to borrow the linguistic legerdemain employed by The Robesonian editorial you quote) the academic department we primarily used as the resource for the scheme wasn't created for that purpose, and none of the coaches were personally involved in carrying out the scheme. In short, we cheated, but you can't do anything about it, because we were very clever.

As a longtime Carolina fan, do you believe that this is how UNC should respond to the charges of wrongdoing presented by the NCAA? Is this what has become of the once-proud "Carolina Way"?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

That's not an alternative viewpoint, that's more of the multi-million dollar unc-cheat PR machine garbage spouted through Bubba's lying lips. Again.

Doc, maybe that's true...but,respectfully, that's just your opinion.

Where is some evidence this opinion piece comes from "Bubba's lying lips"? Like much of what I read about this whole mess, it seems like strong opinions, (like yours), from a biased voice...constantly try to set the tone...regardless of fact.

I found this quote interesting...(Note: I have no idea if true, (no reason to believe it's not), or where/who it supposedly comes from).

"...Fortifying UNC’s case is this Perry Mason moment: A UNC official while in Indianapolis by chance discovered an internal NCAA memo that warns staff it is in tricky territory, saying nothing had been found that “would validate that there was a systematic effort within the African and African American Studies Department motivated by the desire to assist student-athletes with maintaining their eligibility, either in how the courses were created, taught and/or how the grades awarded.”

Has there been any evidence found that proves a "systematic effort" to create those courses to help athletes remain eligible by the athletic department...beyond somebody's opinion?

Honest question.
I try to keep up with this but it does not consume me...

BTW, I don't doubt that some athletes took advantage of these "easy" courses, (obviously, too easy), as did other students, but where is the evidence that they were created by coaches or the AD to "cheat"?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat,

I thought that you had vowed to confine your comments to the subject of basketball, and not venture into the issues regarding UNC's academic/athletic fraud scandal. But since you've elected to offer this "take" from The Robesonian in defense of UNC's position, I hope that you recognize the transparently laughable spin in this craftily worded editorial:

1. The fact that the AFAM Department wasn't "created to keep [athletes] eligible to compete" is immaterial, when the facts established by UNC's own records, as evidenced by the attachments to the Wainstein Report and additional documents that have since been made public, conclusively prove that the AFAM Department -- and certain courses in several other departments at UNC -- were knowingly and deliberately misused by the members of the support staff to ensure that athletes remained eligible, either by requiring little or no legitimate academic work of the athletes, or by manipulating their grades, or by allowing them to drop or add courses to avoid impending failure.

2. The fact that "not a single UNC coach has been shown to have steered a student into the AFAM classes or to ask that a change of a grade be made to keep an athlete on the field or court" is immaterial, when the facts established by UNC's own records, as evidenced by the attachments to the Wainstein Report and additional documents that have since been made public, conclusively prove that members of the support staff -- and in some cases even high-ranking academic faculty -- did steer athletes into those AFAM (and other) fraudulent courses, and did change grades for athletes (and facilitate the dropping or adding of courses by athletes without complying with the normal time limits and procedures).

3. The fact that "not a single coach or anyone else tied to UNC’s athletics program has even been accused of providing a recruit a benefit if they would sign the dotted line to bring their skills to the Chapel Hill campus" is immaterial, when the facts established by UNC's own records, as evidenced by the attachments to the Wainstein Report and additional documents that have since been made public, conclusively prove that such benefits were provided to athletes by others outside the athletics department with the objective of aiding UNC athletics. The sickening irony in this "defense" is that UNC's coaches, including Roy Williams, readily admit that they promise every recruited athlete the benefit of a college education -- a benefit which the record shows (and some of UNC's former athletes have complained) was in fact denied to them, or at least made more difficult for them to obtain, because they were directed or "advised" to take courses that lacked any genuine academic content.

That UNC officials and supporters persist in their attempts to obscure the gravity of this decades-long pattern of misconduct by clinging to technical distinctions and employing diversionary semantics is nothing short of disgraceful. I have family members and lifelong friends who attended UNC-CH, and I always understood and appreciated the pride they took in having earned a degree from an institution that was renowned for academic excellence and integrity. Now I can only feel sad for them, because their achievement is being retroactively devalued by a shameless group of administrators and athletic boosters who are haughtily thumbing their nose at the NCAA and the public, proclaiming in effect:

Even though a scheme to fraudulently maintain the eligibility of athletes was in fact implemented and perpetuated at UNC for decades, with the result that many of our teams competed unfairly, there's nothing you can do about it, because (to borrow the linguistic legerdemain employed by The Robesonian editorial you quote) the academic department we primarily used as the resource for the scheme wasn't created for that purpose, and none of the coaches were personally involved in carrying out the scheme. In short, we cheated, but you can't do anything about it, because we were very clever.

As a longtime Carolina fan, do you believe that this is how UNC should respond to the charges of wrongdoing presented by the NCAA? Is this what has become of the once-proud "Carolina Way"?

Stray,
I haven't got an final opinion on all this yet. Still trying to decide what is factual and not hyperbole. But what I will say is that the school has a responsibility to do a better job of educating students than what we've seen done in that AFAM department.

My question..
We know every school works their courses to keep athletes eligible...and UNC obviously did too...no surprise there...but did the coaches or AD know that these classes...approved and developed by academic leaders with the clear responsibility to maintain course integrity...were "over the line" too easy?

Who decides where that line is or how the students are challenged in every course taught at an NCAA School?
The department chairs, I guess, set the course requirements, the school leaders oversee them, and I also assume it's the college accrediting system that has addressed them, right?

Were coaches and AD department officials somehow involved in the decision to make the classes so easy that they became "fraudulent"? Or did lax academic supervision create a rabbit hole and path of least resistance the athletes fell through?

That's the question I'm trying to get a feel for...not wether athletes and students took advantage of lax classes...we know they did.

The University academics should obviously be held accountable for those weak classes. It's not clear to me that the athletic department set them up.

If coaches or the AD were involved in the course creation for the purpose of competitive advantage, I want to see those emails and other evidence.

[BigWayne]

Doc, maybe that's true...but,respectfully, that's just your opinion.

Where is some evidence this opinion piece comes from "Bubba's lying lips"? Like much of what I read about this whole mess, it seems like strong opinions, (like yours), from a biased voice...constantly try to set the tone...regardless of fact.

I found this quote interesting...(Note: I have no idea if true, (no reason to believe it's not), or where/who it supposedly comes from).

"...Fortifying UNC’s case is this Perry Mason moment: A UNC official while in Indianapolis by chance discovered an internal NCAA memo that warns staff it is in tricky territory, saying nothing had been found that “would validate that there was a systematic effort within the African and African American Studies Department motivated by the desire to assist student-athletes with maintaining their eligibility, either in how the courses were created, taught and/or how the grades awarded.”

Has there been any evidence found that proves a "systematic effort" to create those courses to help athletes remain eligible by the athletic department...beyond somebody's opinion?

Honest question.
I try to keep up with this but it does not consume me...

BTW, I don't doubt that some athletes took advantage of these "easy" courses, (obviously, too easy), as did other students, but where is the evidence that they were created by coaches or the AD to "cheat"?

This item was pointed out in the Andrew carter piece today. http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article93681217.html

Even Carter admits: The report referenced in that passage is the much-criticized Martin Report, which was such a failure, ultimately, that the university commissioned Kenneth Wainstein, a former federal prosecutor, to lead another investigation into the bogus African and Afro-American Studies classes. Wainstein’s report wasn’t released until October 2014.


So one of the key pieces in the argument to declare the accusations null and void is based in the whitewash report UNC ultimately had to admit needing revisiting.

To this point and also your next post, whether a particular coach directed the malfeasance or whether there is other documented evidence of malicious intent is not necessarily material. Crowder and Dr N clearly were providing assistance to keep athletes eligible that was not authorized by the university in any above board way. There is a multitude of cases of NCAA infractions where underlings or outside parties are ruled to be representatives of the university and the university is held responsible. Specifically, an example from the GWU website:

“Institutional control” of athletics is a fundamental requirement of
NCAA legislation. Specifically, the NCAA requires that each institution
be responsible for controlling its intercollegiate athletics program in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the NCAA. GW is responsible
for ensuring that members of the faculty and staff, coaches, student-athletes,
alumni, donors, boosters and friends comply with all applicable NCAA rules.

[MarkD83]

The NCAA has done everything it can to make it looks like they care about this while making it easy for UNC to defend itself.

If this even gets to the COI I will consider it to be a successful prosecution of UNC.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

...Crowder and Dr N clearly were providing assistance to keep athletes eligible that was not authorized by the university in any above board way. There is a multitude of cases of NCAA infractions where underlings or outside parties are ruled to be representatives of the university and the university is held responsible.

I have no problem with the University being held accountable for the lax supervision of Dr N and Crowder for their poor academic decisions for all the students.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I have no problem with the University being held accountable for the lax supervision of Dr N and Crowder for their poor academic decisions for all the students.
Grrrrrr... I am so damn close to getting an infraction I almost want one... man, this bullcrap PR spin pisses me off to no end!

That Robesonian thing you quoted isn't a point of view. What it is, is the pinnacle of all straw man arguments:
1. No one ever said they CREATED the AFAM dept in order to keep kids eligible; they USED the AFAM dept in order to keep kids eligible.
2. So what if a coach didn't directly steer an athlete. No one is saying they did. What's been proven is that plenty of others with direct relationship to the coaches did steer those athletes.
3. So what if no coach asked for a grade change. No one is saying they did. What's been proven is that grades were changed. Doesn't matter who directed that it occur.
4. No one is saying the coaches lured kids with improper benefits. That all happened after the kids hit campus via a well oiled cheating machine.

This makes me so damn angry... Folt and others have acknowledged that inappropriate things took place for a very long time even while trying to get everyone to look the other way and pretend that the W report was never published. And yet the baby blue PR koolaid drinkers just go on denying that anything ever happened.

Wheat, you of all people should recognize that that fishy smell we all smell means there's something rotten as hell over there. Fake classes, fake grades, changed grades, forged signatures, ADD testing, ADD drugs, mouthguards, rental cars, parking tickets... Yes, all just a coincidence and a misunderstanding. Uh-huh.

[devildeac]

Doc, maybe that's true...but,respectfully, that's just your opinion.

Where is some evidence this opinion piece comes from "Bubba's lying lips"? Like much of what I read about this whole mess, it seems like strong opinions, (like yours), from a biased voice...constantly try to set the tone...regardless of fact.

I found this quote interesting...(Note: I have no idea if true, (no reason to believe it's not), or where/who it supposedly comes from).

"...Fortifying UNC’s case is this Perry Mason moment: A UNC official while in Indianapolis by chance discovered an internal NCAA memo that warns staff it is in tricky territory, saying nothing had been found that “would validate that there was a systematic effort within the African and African American Studies Department motivated by the desire to assist student-athletes with maintaining their eligibility, either in how the courses were created, taught and/or how the grades awarded.”

Has there been any evidence found that proves a "systematic effort" to create those courses to help athletes remain eligible by the athletic department...beyond somebody's opinion?

Honest question.
I try to keep up with this but it does not consume me...

BTW, I don't doubt that some athletes took advantage of these "easy" courses, (obviously, too easy), as did other students, but where is the evidence that they were created by coaches or the AD to "cheat"?

Well, Bubba is mentioned in the article commenting on "price already paid."

N'yango and Crowder were both released/fired and refused to co-operate with the NCAA investigation.

McCants himself boasted his phony/fictitious course load/grading in the fall of 2004, prior to him being more "ineligible" for the spring 2005 semester.

The Wainstein report itself is highly damning,with an additional 720 pages (or exhibits, I can't remember) of evidence against unc.

The courses may not have been "created" to keep them eligible but when 40-50% of their enrollment is comprised of FB and MBB players, courses are added/dropped way after university-dictated guidelines, grades are changed or "suggested" to keep athletes eligible and, it persists for ~25 years, and, the former head of the COI is quoted as I posted above, the evidence sure appears overwhelming to me and many, many other sources not connected with unc that this was the largest academic/athletic scandal in the history of SACS and the ncaa.

[Faustus]

Not to mention the e-mail revealed in one of the recent UNC 'dumpings' quoting Bubba where he specifically states they are "spoon-feeding" (his exact words) local newspapers the lines they want them to take. Looks like the esteemed brain-trust in the Robesonian took their spoon-feeding without even thinking twice.

[Stray Gator]

. . . Were coaches and AD department officials somehow involved in the decision to make the classes so easy that they became "fraudulent"? Or did lax academic supervision create a rabbit hole and path of least resistance the athletes fell through?

That's the question I'm trying to get a feel for...not wether athletes and students took advantage of lax classes...we know they did.

The University academics should obviously be held accountable for those weak classes. It's not clear to me that the athletic department set them up.

If coaches or the AD were involved in the course creation for the purpose of competitive advantage, I want to see those emails and other evidence.

Wheat,

You're buying into the fundamentally flawed premise of The Robesonian editorial -- i.e., that unless UNC coaches or athletic department officials either created or were personally involved in the fraudulent scheme to maintain the eligibility of athletes, UNC athletics should not be subject to the imposition of any sanctions. But as I tried to explain, that premise rests on an assumption that begs the question: If UNC athletes would not have been academically eligible to compete absent the implementation of this scheme that employed improper means, including courses in several departments that were devoid of any meaningful academic content together with the manipulation of grades and class enrollment rules, why does it matter whether the coaches or athletic officials created the scheme, or were personally involved in it, or even knew about it?

We can argue endlessly (and pointlessly) about whether the coaches should have known that their players were earning all those high GPAs through improper means; but at the end of the day it all boils down to this unassailable point: Regardless of whether or not UNC coaches or other athletic department officials were involved, if players should properly have been ineligible to play, then UNC athletics improperly benefited from their participation; and therefore any game or title won by a UNC team in which any such player competed should be forfeited.

Whether or not the scheme was entirely the handiwork of academic staff, and whether or not any coaches or athletic department officials were involved or had knowledge of the scheme, there can be no dispute that UNC athletics was the ultimate beneficiary. Even if you accept the premise that the folks in UNC athletics were at all times completely innocent and unaware of this decades-long subterfuge by a group of conveniently placed faculty and academic staff members -- a position that I would characterize as extremely naive -- the fact remains that UNC basketball and football teams, and coaches, were the beneficiaries; and unless you believe that the people who carried out the fraudulent academic scheme did so simply out of the goodness of their hearts, the UNC basketball and football teams (and coaches) were the intended beneficiaries.

So the question I pose to you is this: Should UNC athletics be allowed to profit from the wrongdoing of others with impunity and retain those improperly acquired benefits -- what we lawyers would call the "fruit of the poisonous tree" -- based on the fact that there's no proof of any personal involvement by UNC coaches or athletic officials? I can offer a number of analogies of situations in which a person has profited from the wrongdoing of an employee (or fellow employee, if you consider that a more apt parallel) or family member without the person's involvement or knowledge, and ask whether you believe that person should be allowed to retain the ill-gotten spoils simply because he or she was, in effect, an innocent beneficiary. In my opinion, many of the wins and titles that UNC has amassed during the past few decades, and obviously much of the money it has received as a result of those athletic "successes," were not fairly earned, and should be forfeited. It may not be compelled by the NCAA or the ACC; but it's the right thing to do. Seeing the lengths to which UNC officials and supporters are now straining to avoid doing the right thing -- or even to acknowledge that UNC should be accountable in any respect for the wrongdoing that made those "victories" possible -- is something I would never have believed possible; and I find it disgraceful.

[77devil]

Here's another take on all this from the Robesonian editorial (http://robesonian.com/opinion/90372/unc-finally-goes-on-defense-against-ncaa).

From the editorial...

"...What Cunningham didn’t mention as part of the penalty already paid was six years of largely inaccurate media coverage, which the university’s athletics programs, especially the money-making football and men’s basketball teams, have weathered remarkably well. But that coverage established a false narrative that continues to this day — and is why those paying attention part-time expect UNC to get the electric chair.

Except no, the African and Afro-American Studies Department that disproportionately attracted athletes to its classes was not created to keep them eligible to compete. And no, not a single UNC coach has been shown to have steered a student into the AFAM classes or to ask that a change of a grade be made to keep an athlete on the field or court. And no, not a single coach or anyone else tied to UNC’s athletics program has even been accused of providing a recruit a benefit if they would sign the dotted line to bring their skills to the Chapel Hill campus.

If any of that had happened, then one or more of the nearly double-digit investigations would have revealed it given the access university officials provided, especially to emails."

The Robesonian is a little hick paper in Lumberton with a circulation of 14,000 run by a UNC grad. Spare us this tripe and find a real news source.

Wheat is poking the bear. Don't take the bait.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat,

You're buying into the fundamentally flawed premise of The Robesonian editorial -- i.e., that unless UNC coaches or athletic department officials either created or were personally involved in the fraudulent scheme to maintain the eligibility of athletes, UNC athletics should not be subject to the imposition of any sanctions. But as I tried to explain, that premise rests on an assumption that begs the question: If UNC athletes would not have been academically eligible to compete absent the implementation of this scheme that employed improper means, including courses in several departments that were devoid of any meaningful academic content together with the manipulation of grades and class enrollment rules, why does it matter whether the coaches or athletic officials created the scheme, or were personally involved in it, or even knew about it?


...it doesn't if the goal is to punish the institution, as an institution, for allowing the courses to be so weak. Punish UNC, even the athletic department, if that's what it takes to get the message through to the administrators that such low standards won't be tolerated, I'm fine with it.
But what I'm seeing is the reputation of many good people in athletics who I'm guessing probably didn't have any idea those courses had crossed somebody's academic standard line being held responsible and called a cheat. It doesn't seem fair to me.
There needs to be some distinction between an individuals responsibilities on what they were expected to know about and the institutions responsibilities in this matter.


We can argue endlessly (and pointlessly) about whether the coaches should have known that their players were earning all those high GPAs through improper means; but at the end of the day it all boils down to this unassailable point: Regardless of whether or not UNC coaches or other athletic department officials were involved, if players should properly have been ineligible to play, then UNC athletics improperly benefited from their participation; and therefore any game or title won by a UNC team in which any such player competed should be forfeited.


If those players stayed eligible by completing their course work, even tho it was minimal, but that was what was required, and it was all approved by SACS during that time...I don't see how retroactively you can punish those players? But whatever, if it's deemed there was clear intent by UNC for those courses to be set up only for the purpose of floating athletics, and gaining a competitive edge, I don't care what punishment is dished out, that can't be tolerated.


Whether or not the scheme was entirely the handiwork of academic staff, and whether or not any coaches or athletic department officials were involved or had knowledge of the scheme, there can be no dispute that UNC athletics was the ultimate beneficiary. Even if you accept the premise that the folks in UNC athletics were at all times completely innocent and unaware of this decades-long subterfuge by a group of conveniently placed faculty and academic staff members -- a position that I would characterize as extremely naive -- the fact remains that UNC basketball and football teams, and coaches, were the beneficiaries; and unless you believe that the people who carried out the fraudulent academic scheme did so simply out of the goodness of their hearts, the UNC basketball and football teams (and coaches) were the intended beneficiaries.


it's hard to put the ketchup back in the bottle, so it's said. But if its determined by facts that the school administrators knew these courses by Dr N and Crowder were for the purpose of only keeping athletes eligible and approved them or knowingly looked the other way,(which I have not seen proven, yet), then I'm OK if they forfeit their games.


So the question I pose to you is this: Should UNC athletics be allowed to profit from the wrongdoing of others with impunity and retain those improperly acquired benefits -- what we lawyers would call the "fruit of the poisonous tree" -- based on the fact that there's no proof of any personal involvement by UNC coaches or athletic officials? I can offer a number of analogies of situations in which a person has profited from the wrongdoing of an employee (or fellow employee, if you consider that a more apt parallel) or family member without the person's involvement or knowledge, and ask whether you believe that person should be allowed to retain the ill-gotten spoils simply because he or she was, in effect, an innocent beneficiary. In my opinion, many of the wins and titles that UNC has amassed during the past few decades, and obviously much of the money it has received as a result of those athletic "successes," were not fairly earned, and should be forfeited. It may not be compelled by the NCAA or the ACC; but it's the right thing to do. Seeing the lengths to which UNC officials and supporters are now straining to avoid doing the right thing -- or even to acknowledge that UNC should be accountable in any respect for the wrongdoing that made those "victories" possible -- is something I would never have believed possible; and I find it disgraceful.


I'm not a lawyer, or a UNC graduate, just a basketball fan. I don't know how to respond to the "fruits of the poisoned tree" argument when I see the whole landscape of the NCAA model as poisoned.


Responding within your post in bold since I'm IPad challenged.

[BigWayne]

I have no problem with the University being held accountable for the lax supervision of Dr N and Crowder for their poor academic decisions for all the students.

So you obviously won't have a problem with all of the athletes that used their unauthorized assistance to maintain eligibility being retroactively declared ineligible and all contests they participated in vacated. It doesn't matter if a coach, a secretary, or even a babysitter is the one that provides the fraudulent assistance, the athlete can still be declared ineligible. Having a method to keep this hidden from university supervisors and the NCAA for years does not make it permissible. In any event, it's clear everyone associated with UNC is going to claim innocence until and probably well after the COI rules.

I just hope UNC's figurative middle finger to the NCAA and essentially every other college and university pisses enough important people off that they figure out a way to give UNC what it so richly deserves. In fact, regardless of the COI's actions, I wouldn't be surprised if powerful players take actions behind the scenes to make UNC pay for this down the road.

[sammy3469]

I just want to point out that according to Wainstein, athletic administrators including Baddour say on their knowledge of what was happening in the AFAM department in at least 2009-10 and didn't tell academic administrators when they were sitting on academic/athletic review panels.

The UNC response is load of crap for a bunch of reasons, but they don't address that fact (or really any) in the Wainstein report. In fact, they try to rewrite history on the leeway they gave him in dealing with the NCAA.

I'll also just say, UNC's response is written for after the fact litigation not for the COI panel. My guess is all these points (statute of limitations, prior review, etc) were already determined (negatively for UNC).

[TruBlu]

Well, Wheat and the Robesonian have convinced me that unc should be applauded and congratulated for having survived this unfair persecution. Perhaps unc should hang another banner proclaiming victory over the dark forces which possibly prevented several more championships for unc. We could call it the "Robesonian Mythical Championship Banner" to bookend their other mythical Helms Banner.

Shaking my head, along with making other gestures in the direction of Chapel Hill.

[bedeviled]

according to Wainstein, athletic administrators including Baddour say on their knowledge of what was happening in the AFAM department in at least 2009-10 and didn't tell academic administrators when they were sitting on academic/athletic review panels

And, it was not just athletic administrators who were looking the other way. Even the Wainstein report, which lays the blame solely on AFAM, states:

Both Crowder and Nyang’oro indicated their belief that the Chapel Hill administration wanted them to provide this assistance to the student-athletes. When we asked about the basis for this belief, both cited the administration’s inaction throughout the years as evidence of its acquiescence in the classes. In addition, Nyang’oro cited several comments he received over the years from administrators and faculty suggesting an awareness and approval of the AFAM Department’s efforts on behalf of student-athletes

While the report goes on to undermine what Wainstein determined as the only "approving" comment, it cleverly avoids addressing the comments regarding awareness. Wainstein's reasoning for not addressing these comments:
This supposed affirmation by the administration finds little support in the record, and likely had no meaningful effect on their decision to maintain the paper class schemeSo, both of them thought the administration wanted them to do this for athletes, but that had no effect on their decision to do so?? :confused: Sure that makes sense. No big deal, let's just ignore that stuff.


But if its determined by facts that the school administrators knew these courses by Dr N and Crowder were for the purpose of only keeping athletes eligible and approved them or knowingly looked the other way,(which I have not seen proven, yet), then I'm OK if they forfeit their games

Well, since the investigation chose to pass over the administration's awareness that the courses were designed for student athletes, I indeed find it hard to prove at the moment. The report, though, does acknowledge multiple administrators stating that something was amiss. They knew something yet looked the other way. What is your thought on why no one looked to see where the smell was coming from? If you contend that they didn't know about the athletic connection, do you have an alternative for why they looked away? (note: I'm gonna use some bold text for highlight purposes, not because I'm trying to yell/attack)

I should state that not everyone looked away. The Associate Dean / Director of Academic Advising (Cannon) reported AFAM enrollment impropriety to Dean Owen. Cannon also reported grade change improprieties to Dean Owen. Cannon also reported forged signature improprieties to Dean Owen. Cannon even told her staff to stop referring students to AFAM! Wainstein writes
there is clear reason to suspect that [Cannon] had deep suspicions – and possibly concrete knowledge – about irregular practices in the AFAM DepartmentOf course, she didn't look away, so that doesn't satisfy your request. But you know who DID look away? Each time Cannon brought these improprieties to her superior, Dean Owen looked away. Why do you think Dean Owen looked away? It's hard to argue that it was ignorance. Certainly a Dean would know that abnormal grade changes and forged signatures should be investigated.

Do you propose that it was ineptitude? First, ignoring forgery and grade fraud is an improbable ineptitude. In addition, the chain of command does not stop with Dean Owen. Consider that Dean Owen approved Nyang'oro to teach up to 300+ independent studies per year while serving as the Chair, teaching 10+ legit courses, and performing other duties local and abroad. By anyone's account that's a farfetched possibility logistically. More importantly, it is a farfetched possibility financially. Below is a quote from a college professor explaining why pretending that the administration didn't know about the paper classe is a lie "obvious to anyone in higher education." (https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2014/10/unc-guilty-of-racketeering.html) In short, the fiscal aspects of course enrollments are looked at closely by multiple levels of administrators, and independent studies are not a financially beneficial practice. Approval, with clear reasonings, must proceed up the chain of command.
These paper classes were independent study courses, and had enrollments of 1 apiece. Yes, 1 student. That’s the kind of number that administrators notice, immediately. The only way admin would approve a single such course (much less approve it over 3,000 times) is if they knew exactly what was going on. There’s no way they’d lose profits otherwise. Legitimate courses with a single student can certainly happen, but an administrator seeing a few dozen such courses is going to, at the bare minimum, ask that they be converted into one class. Even if not, the next administrator up the food chain is going to ask why so many independent study courses, especially at the undergraduate level. It gets past two administrators? Very unlikely, but those approvals had to go all the way up the chain of command without anyone noticing a problem. For 18 years.

It wasn’t just the department head. It wasn’t just the dean. It wasn’t just the provost, vice-chancellor, vice-president, chancellor or Grand Poo-bah. Everyone knew, from the department head on up (at the bare minimum!)…everyone had to know, every semester, of the 50+ bogus courses being given each semester over the course of 18 years.
Also of note, Dean Owen was not the only Dean responsible for allowing athletes to drop/add after policy registration windows. The Athletic Support Program emails demonstrate that they did this out of concern for athletic eligibility. Why do you think the Deans signed off on them?

I realize that this is a "where there's smoke there's fire" argument, and I agree that it is not a proper way to establish proof. However, without an investigation or cooperation from the parties involved, we have to rely on common sense. In the absence of other rationale for the administration's willingness to look away, I do believe the smoke is coming from the athletic fields. It seems pretty clear that UNC Admin knew something and looked away...looked away from forgeries, academic fraud, financial solvency, and written policies. Do you have an alternative reason or do you choose to just look away? :o (sorry for that last bit; I couldn't pass it up!)

[DukePA]

I have developed a severe gluten intolerance.

[Indoor66]

Do you have an alternative reason or do you choose to just look away? :o

That is simple: Apologists gonna Apologize! :cool:

[devildeac]

So you obviously won't have a problem with all of the athletes that used their unauthorized assistance to maintain eligibility being retroactively declared ineligible and all contests they participated in vacated. It doesn't matter if a coach, a secretary, or even a babysitter is the one that provides the fraudulent assistance, the athlete can still be declared ineligible. Having a method to keep this hidden from university supervisors and the NCAA for years does not make it permissible. In any event, it's clear everyone associated with UNC is going to claim innocence until and probably well after the COI rules.

I just hope UNC's figurative middle finger to the NCAA and essentially every other college and university pisses enough important people off that they figure out a way to give UNC what it so richly deserves. In fact, regardless of the COI's actions, I wouldn't be surprised if powerful players take actions behind the scenes to make UNC pay for this down the road.

I find your second paragraph intriguing/interesting. Do you really think repercussions like this could happen? And, if so, how or what might you "suggest" to those folks? Or, do you think it's more likely, that if the cheaters escape any significant/meaningful/deserved punishment, that major universities who have tried to be "law-abiding folks say, "screw the ncaa, we'll do whatever it takes to keep our athletes eligible" and then take the unc approach and tell the ncaa to mind their own business-you have no control over our academic affairs.

[BigWayne]

I find your second paragraph intriguing/interesting. Do you really think repercussions like this could happen? And, if so, how or what might you "suggest" to those folks? Or, do you think it's more likely, that if the cheaters escape any significant/meaningful/deserved punishment, that major universities who have tried to be "law-abiding folks say, "screw the ncaa, we'll do whatever it takes to keep our athletes eligible" and then take the unc approach and tell the ncaa to mind their own business-you have no control over our academic affairs.

Well it's mostly wishful thinking, but the response UNC gave is so patently obstinate that I can see people that might otherwise not take notice thinking something should be done if the COI doesn't punish them significantly. Many powerful people do not want to be in the news but have ways to make things happen without the general public knowing.

For example, take a look at this pic and see if you recognize anyone who might have an issue with UNC's behavior.

6566

[devildeac]

Well it's mostly wishful thinking, but the response UNC gave is so patently obstinate that I can see people that might otherwise not take notice thinking something should be done if the COI doesn't punish them significantly. Many powerful people do not want to be in the news but have ways to make things happen without the general public knowing.

For example, take a look at this pic and see if you recognize anyone who might have an issue with UNC's behavior.

6566

I've got one nominee but, if I mention the name, I might not be allowed to re-enter that venue. ;)

[YmoBeThere]

Well it's mostly wishful thinking, but the response UNC gave is so patently obstinate that I can see people that might otherwise not take notice thinking something should be done if the COI doesn't punish them significantly. Many powerful people do not want to be in the news but have ways to make things happen without the general public knowing.

For example, take a look at this pic and see if you recognize anyone who might have an issue with UNC's behavior.

6566

Jay Z? :p

[martydoesntfoul]

I should state that not everyone looked away. The Associate Dean / Director of Academic Advising (Cannon) reported AFAM enrollment impropriety to Dean Owen. Cannon also reported grade change improprieties to Dean Owen. Cannon also reported forged signature improprieties to Dean Owen. Cannon even told her staff to stop referring students to AFAM! Wainstein writes Of course, she didn't look away, so that doesn't satisfy your request. But you know who DID look away? Each time Cannon brought these improprieties to her superior, Dean Owen looked away. Why do you think Dean Owen looked away? It's hard to argue that it was ignorance. Certainly a Dean would know that abnormal grade changes and forged signatures should be investigated.

Do you propose that it was ineptitude? First, ignoring forgery and grade fraud is an improbable ineptitude. In addition, the chain of command does not stop with Dean Owen. Consider that Dean Owen approved Nyang'oro to teach up to 300+ independent studies per year while serving as the Chair, teaching 10+ legit courses, and performing other duties local and abroad. By anyone's account that's a farfetched possibility logistically. More importantly, it is a farfetched possibility financially. Below is a quote from a college professor explaining why pretending that the administration didn't know about the paper classe is a lie "obvious to anyone in higher education." (https://professorconfess.blogspot.com/2014/10/unc-guilty-of-racketeering.html) In short, the fiscal aspects of course enrollments are looked at closely by multiple levels of administrators, and independent studies are not a financially beneficial practice. Approval, with clear reasonings, must proceed up the chain of command.
Also of note, Dean Owen was not the only Dean responsible for allowing athletes to drop/add after policy registration windows. The Athletic Support Program emails demonstrate that they did this out of concern for athletic eligibility. Why do you think the Deans signed off on them?


This post should be up in lights 24/7. As time passes and so much information fades into memory, some of the remarkable findings get obfuscated behind the Big Lie PR approach UNC-HW is pursuing.

Additionally, the claim SACS is the responsible party here neglects two critical issues: (1) that these classes would not have existed if not for athletics, and (2) SACS is impotent. Because whether or not (1) is true, anything short of severe punishment for UNC-HW is a complete joke. So in summary, sure we're guilty, but since the responsible entity can't/won't do anything, the proper course is to move on as if nothing ever happened. In other words, shoot the gap between SACS and NCAA oversight. If the strategy succeeds, the evasion playbook is now known to everyone, and big-time collegiate athletics will never be the same.

[oldnavy]

This post should be up in lights 24/7. As time passes and so much information fades into memory, some of the remarkable findings get obfuscated behind the Big Lie PR approach UNC-HW is pursuing.

Additionally, the claim SACS is the responsible party here neglects two critical issues: (1) that these classes would not have existed if not for athletics, and (2) SACS is impotent. Because whether or not (1) is true, anything short of severe punishment for UNC-HW is a complete joke. So in summary, sure we're guilty, but since the responsible entity can't/won't do anything, the proper course is to move on as if nothing ever happened. In other words, shoot the gap between SACS and NCAA oversight. If the strategy succeeds, the evasion playbook is now known to everyone, and big-time collegiate athletics will never be the same.

The money issue regarding classes is brilliant. The only way you could justify this as a bean counter is that the greater payback will come from keeping the players eligible and therefore more wins for the UNC Brand. The additional cost of allowing some non-athletes and non-revenue athletes in was well worth it.

The other question that comes to my mind is, now that UNC has found the beanstalk that leads to the golden eggs, what is to keep them from continuing to set up sham classes and place athletes into these sham classes? All it seems they need to do, is to created a major such as "Laundry Management" and they are golden. The first year could be spent on sorting the laundry, the second year on how to wash the sorted laundry, the third year on what dryer settings to use on the different laundry, and the fourth year could be on folding. You could mix in some really advanced classes such and fitted sheet folding, and when to hang dry verses when to tumble dry for the academically gifted.

Obviously no one at UNC would care, and no one outside of UNC can say anything about how UNC sets up their academics... at least then the "student" athletes who don't make it to the professional level will have a useful skill set when they "graduate".

[devildeac]

The money issue regarding classes is brilliant. The only way you could justify this as a bean counter is that the greater payback will come from keeping the players eligible and therefore more wins for the UNC Brand. The additional cost of allowing some non-athletes and non-revenue athletes in was well worth it.

The other question that comes to my mind is, now that UNC has found the beanstalk that leads to the golden eggs, what is to keep them from continuing to set up sham classes and place athletes into these sham classes? All it seems they need to do, is to created a major such as "Laundry Management" and they are golden. The first year could be spent on sorting the laundry, the second year on how to wash the sorted laundry, the third year on what dryer settings to use on the different laundry, and the fourth year could be on folding. You could mix in some really advanced classes such and fitted sheet folding, and when to hang dry verses when to tumble dry for the academically gifted.

Obviously no one at UNC would care, and no one outside of UNC can say anything about how UNC sets up their academics... at least then the "student" athletes who don't make it to the professional level will have a useful skill set when they "graduate".

Could give a whole new meaning to the term "dirty laundry." In the "academic" sense, of course (pun intended). ;)

However, I think they're all full of sheet over there already.

[Indoor66]

Could give a whole new meaning to the term "dirty laundry." In the "academic" sense, of course (pun intended). ;)

However, I think they're all full of sheet over there already.

Morally they are quite a few threads short of a full sheet, but they are full of sheet, as you so well said. :cool:

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

The other question that comes to my mind is, now that UNC has found the beanstalk that leads to the golden eggs, what is to keep them from continuing to set up sham classes and place athletes into these sham classes? All it seems they need to do, is to created a major such as "Laundry Management" and they are golden. The first year could be spent on sorting the laundry, the second year on how to wash the sorted laundry, the third year on what dryer settings to use on the different laundry, and the fourth year could be on folding. You could mix in some really advanced classes such and fitted sheet folding, and when to hang dry verses when to tumble dry for the academically gifted.
I realize this example is in jest. Maybe. ;) Still, they will have to come up with a way to ensure that athletes can get all the spots in these classes without triggering an impermissible benefit related to walling off the classes for athletes only or otherwise providing some unique way of steering the athletes to these classes since the classes will of course have to be made available to the entire student body. But I have faith that the Cheaters will figure that out. Probably already have.

[WiJoe]

Here are the two options the NCAA should give unCheats after the worst academic scandal in the association's history:

Either:

Hard sanctions, STARTING with the loss of two ncaa basketball titles as well as scholarships.

or

Complete and TOTAL expulsion of all sports from the NCAA.

[tteettimes]

I'll have whatever he's having 😊😊😊😊😊

[YmoBeThere]

I'll have whatever he's having 😊😊😊😊😊

Don't stop him, he's on a roll.

[devildeac]

Dan Kane is at it again in this morning's News and Observer:

UNC to NCAA: Don’t use Wainstein’s work to penalize us


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article94256562.h


They're @#$%ing kidding, right?

[OldPhiKap]

Could give a whole new meaning to the term "dirty laundry."

Kick 'em when they're up,
Kick 'em when they're down.
Kick 'em when they're stiff.
Kick 'em all around.

[TKG]

Kick 'em when they're up,
Kick 'em when they're down.
Kick 'em when they're stiff.
Kick 'em all around.

Does Carol Folt play the role of bubble-headed bleach blond?

[devildeac]

Dan Kane is at it again in this morning's News and Observer:

UNC to NCAA: Don’t use Wainstein’s work to penalize us


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article94256562.h


They're @#$%ing kidding, right?

I thought about this a bit more after posting. If they didn't do anything wrong, what can they be penalized for? Or, if they did lots of wrong things and have corrected all the things they weren't doing wrong, and the ncaa has no business in their academic affairs, what do they have to fear?

[devildeac]

Does Carol Folt play the role of bubble-headed bleach blond?

Comes on at five.

[94duke]

Dan Kane is at it again in this morning's News and Observer:

UNC to NCAA: Don’t use Wainstein’s work to penalize us


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article94256562.h


They're @#$%ing kidding, right?

fixed link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article94256562.html

[devildeac]

fixed link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article94256562.html

Thank you!

[elvis14]

I thought about this a bit more after posting. If they didn't do anything wrong, what can they be penalized for? Or, if they did lots of wrong things and have corrected all the things they weren't doing wrong, and the ncaa has no business in their academic affairs, what do they have to fear?

I love when UNCheat comes out and gives this long list of things they have done to fix the issues and be clean. Then they follow that up with "athletics didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished". Ummm, if you weren't doing anything wrong why did you make all those changes to fix what wasn't broken/cheating?

[devildeac]

I love when UNCheat comes out and give this long list of things they have done to fix the issues and be clean. Then they follow that up with "athletics didn't do anything wrong and shouldn't be punished". Ummm, if you weren't doing anything wrong why did you make all those changes to fix what wasn't broken/cheating?

I'll quote budwom (I think) who first posted here (something like):

"They said they've fixed all the things they said they weren't doing." (Corollary: And they won't do them anymore, even though they didn't do them in the first place.)

(I'll let him visit and correct my misunderestimation/mal-quoting of his original words :o.)

[77devil]

Dan Kane is at it again in this morning's News and Observer:

UNC to NCAA: Don’t use Wainstein’s work to penalize us


http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article94256562.h


They're @#$%ing kidding, right?

There is a chance, albeit small, that the COI will take a harsher stand.


Eventually, the Committee on Infractions could decide to include the information from Nyang’oro and Crowder. It could also take other steps such as requiring the enforcement staff to add another charge to bolster the allegations of failure to monitor and lack of institutional control, though that could push a decision out further – and create more questions about the NCAA’s oft-maligned enforcement process.

[OldPhiKap]

I'll quote budwom (I think) who first posted here (something like):

"They said they've fixed all the things they said they weren't doing." (Corollary: And they won't do them anymore, even though they didn't do them in the first place.)

(I'll let him visit and correct my misunderestimation/mal-quoting of his original words :o.)

We didn't do it.

And if we did do it, we didn't mean to do it.

And if we meant to do it, we've stopped doing it.

And if we haven't stopped doing it, we didn't mean to keep doing it.

And if we meant to keep doing it, we have a right to do it.

And if we didn't have a right to do it, you don't have jurisdiction over the issue anyway.

And if you do have jurisdiction over the issue, we will lawyer you to the ends of the earth.

So, nothing to see here. Stop persecuting us.

[sagegrouse]

There is a chance, albeit small, that the COI will take a harsher stand.

UNC is gonna get hammered, and its over-the-top legal offensive is just an indication of how much trouble the powers-that-be in Chapel Hill realize they are in. I expect most of what I have read about UNC's latest sally will be totally dismissed by the COI. For example, the fact that Boxill, Crowley and Nyang'oro are no longer employees hardly absolves UNC of anything -- I mean, people are always the actors in such situations.

And UNC's right to sue is limited by the terms of its membership in the NCAA.

But I have no problem with others who are convinced that UNC will skate. Heck, skepticism is a healthy approach to most subjects.

[aimo]

We didn't do it.

And if we did do it, we didn't mean to do it.

And if we meant to do it, we've stopped doing it.

And if we haven't stopped doing it, we didn't mean to keep doing it.

And if we meant to keep doing it, we have a right to do it.

And if we didn't have a right to do it, you don't have jurisdiction over the issue anyway.

And if you do have jurisdiction over the issue, we will lawyer you to the ends of the earth.

So, nothing to see here. Stop persecuting us.

You forgot, "and as you persecute us, do not use the information we provided you from Weinstein, whom we hired."

[Rich]

We didn't do it.

And if we did do it, we didn't mean to do it.

And if we meant to do it, we've stopped doing it.

And if we haven't stopped doing it, we didn't mean to keep doing it.

And if we meant to keep doing it, we have a right to do it.

And if we didn't have a right to do it, you don't have jurisdiction over the issue anyway.

And if you do have jurisdiction over the issue, we will lawyer you to the ends of the earth.

So, nothing to see here. Stop persecuting us.


You forgot, "and as you persecute us, do not use the information we provided you from Weinstein, whom we hired."

And also, "And if you do have jurisdiction over the issue, well, you're too late."

[sagegrouse]

You forgot, "and as you persecute us, do not use the information we provided you from Weinstein, whom we hired."

IIRC the NCAA and the UNC compliance staff were both involved in the Wainstein investigation. UNC's point, perhaps, is that the standards used in the interviews were not exactly the same as those mandated by the NCAA. Duh, pretty weak point, UNC.

[rasputin]

We didn't do it.

And if we did do it, we didn't mean to do it.

And if we meant to do it, we've stopped doing it.

And if we haven't stopped doing it, we didn't mean to keep doing it.

And if we meant to keep doing it, we have a right to do it.

And if we didn't have a right to do it, you don't have jurisdiction over the issue anyway.

And if you do have jurisdiction over the issue, we will lawyer you to the ends of the earth.

So, nothing to see here. Stop persecuting us.

Borrowing from the late Jim McElhaney in the ABA Journal:

“The plaintiff, a farmer who grew a patch of cabbages behind his house, had a neighbor who kept a goat in his backyard. One day the goat broke loose, got into the cabbage patch, and ate lots of cabbages while digging up and ruining the rest of the patch. The farmer sued the owner of the goat for his lost cabbages. Here is how the ‘raise-every-issue defense lawyer’ responded in his opening statement:

“ ‘You had no cabbages.

“ ‘If you had any cabbages, they were not eaten.

“ ‘If your cabbages were eaten, it was not by a goat.

“ ‘If your cabbages were eaten by a goat, it wasn’t my goat.

“ ‘And if it was my goat, he was insane.’ ”

[sagegrouse]

Borrowing from the late Jim McElhaney in the ABA Journal:

“The plaintiff, a farmer who grew a patch of cabbages behind his house, had a neighbor who kept a goat in his backyard. One day the goat broke loose, got into the cabbage patch, and ate lots of cabbages while digging up and ruining the rest of the patch. The farmer sued the owner of the goat for his lost cabbages. Here is how the ‘raise-every-issue defense lawyer’ responded in his opening statement:

“ ‘You had no cabbages.

“ ‘If you had any cabbages, they were not eaten.

“ ‘If your cabbages were eaten, it was not by a goat.

“ ‘If your cabbages were eaten by a goat, it wasn’t my goat.

“ ‘And if it was my goat, he was insane.’ ”And if any cabbages were eaten, the act was obviously committed by Jesse's Cabbages, who has since fled to Lithuania. Here is the phone number of the embassy in Washington.

[Lar77]

Ed Hardin generally has a clear light blue preference, but here's his column from yesterday:

http://www.greensboro.com/gnr/ed-hardin-unc-v-ncaa-is-just-getting-started/article_c13ec553-8e5b-5c05-ae1c-1a729f34d478.html

So his take is that NCAA has to come out strong or fade into the setting sun as several schools trot out their laundry folding major (Old Navy, I, for one, believe that folding a fitted sheet requires a PhD, which is why I just put the sheet back on the bed out of the dryer).

[BigWayne]

Ed Hardin generally has a clear light blue preference, but here's his column from yesterday:

http://www.greensboro.com/gnr/ed-hardin-unc-v-ncaa-is-just-getting-started/article_c13ec553-8e5b-5c05-ae1c-1a729f34d478.html

So his take is that NCAA has to come out strong or fade into the setting sun as several schools trot out their laundry folding major (Old Navy, I, for one, believe that folding a fitted sheet requires a PhD, which is why I just put the sheet back on the bed out of the dryer).

Yes, he states it's either UNC gets hammered or the NCAA dies. The light blue tint does show through near the end:
This is a breathtaking gamble by Carolina, one that would suggest it knows something that we don’t.

I really find it hard to believe that the NCAA will acquiesce to UNC knowing that their own survival is in jeopardy. Regardless of what the final result is after all the lawyers get done, the NCAA has to at least try to hammer UNC to prevent their own demise.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Ed Hardin generally has a clear light blue preference, but here's his column from yesterday:

http://www.greensboro.com/gnr/ed-hardin-unc-v-ncaa-is-just-getting-started/article_c13ec553-8e5b-5c05-ae1c-1a729f34d478.html

So his take is that NCAA has to come out strong or fade into the setting sun as several schools trot out their laundry folding major (Old Navy, I, for one, believe that folding a fitted sheet requires a PhD, which is why I just put the sheet back on the bed out of the dryer).


Yes, he states it's either UNC gets hammered or the NCAA dies. The light blue tint does show through near the end:

I really find it hard to believe that the NCAA will acquiesce to UNC knowing that their own survival is in jeopardy. Regardless of what the final result is after all the lawyers get done, the NCAA has to at least try to hammer UNC to prevent their own demise.

I'm guessing we are seeing the true dawning of the NCAA's irrelevance as anything other than a body to organize tournaments. As an entity, they'll survive, just without respect for any governance of "rules". I wonder if Emmert survives; I can't see how other schools recently penalized don't at least call for his resignation.

[Stray Gator]

...it doesn't if the goal is to punish the institution, as an institution, for allowing the courses to be so weak. Punish UNC, even the athletic department, if that's what it takes to get the message through to the administrators that such low standards won't be tolerated, I'm fine with it.
But what I'm seeing is the reputation of many good people in athletics who I'm guessing probably didn't have any idea those courses had crossed somebody's academic standard line being held responsible and called a cheat. It doesn't seem fair to me.
There needs to be some distinction between an individuals responsibilities on what they were expected to know about and the institutions responsibilities in this matter.



If those players stayed eligible by completing their course work, even tho it was minimal, but that was what was required, and it was all approved by SACS during that time...I don't see how retroactively you can punish those players? But whatever, if it's deemed there was clear intent by UNC for those courses to be set up only for the purpose of floating athletics, and gaining a competitive edge, I don't care what punishment is dished out, that can't be tolerated.



it's hard to put the ketchup back in the bottle, so it's said. But if its determined by facts that the school administrators knew these courses by Dr N and Crowder were for the purpose of only keeping athletes eligible and approved them or knowingly looked the other way,(which I have not seen proven, yet), then I'm OK if they forfeit their games.



I'm not a lawyer, or a UNC graduate, just a basketball fan. I don't know how to respond to the "fruits of the poisoned tree" argument when I see the whole landscape of the NCAA model as poisoned.


Responding within your post in bold since I'm IPad challenged.

Apologies for the delay in responding over the weekend.

I applaud your acknowledgement that both the university as a whole and the athletic department specifically should be punished if the evidence shows that "weak" courses were used to facilitate athlete eligibility. As I understand the substance of the Wainstein Report, and the UNC Administration's statements in response to that Report, there is abundant evidence to support the conclusion that numerous such courses were in fact offered to, and taken for credit by, athletes. Indeed, UNC's own records reflect that some of these courses so weak that they required no class attendance at all and the student had to do nothing more than submit a short paper to earn a passing grade; in some cases, the staff members who were employed to provide academic support for the athletic department and actually supervised the scheme were allowed to assign the grades for the classes, and gave the athletes high grades even though they knew that the papers submitted by those athletes were plagiarized.

So far as I can tell, UNC officials and their attorneys are making no effort to directly refute, or apologize for, the fact that this scheme was allowed to flourish at the school for decades. Rather, in a display of audacity and contempt that would be laughable if it were not so astonishing, UNC's officials and lawyers defiantly proclaim that this scheme to maintain the eligibility of athletes by enabling them to take courses that required no attendance or actual work must be deemed creditable because the courses were open to other students. Never mind that (a) the course descriptions were deliberately misleading to discourage legitimate students from enrolling; (b) in the classes that had multiple students -- i.e., the ones that weren't "independent study" courses -- the number of athletes was heavily disproportionate to the number of non-athletes; (c) in some cases, the non-athletes who were allowed to register consisted mainly of students characterized by the support staff members as "frat boys" who heard about the courses through word of mouth, and the support staff members who supervised the scheme only allowed a limited number of those non-athletes to register to create the impression that the courses were legitimate; and (d) in some cases, staff members allowed athletes to withdraw from or be added to a course outside the prescribed time periods for the purpose of ensuring that they did not become academically ineligible. Despite these circumstances, UNC now insists that because the athletes had to comply with some minimal requirement to receive course credit, and because the courses were in some sense "open" to non-athletes, the NCAA has no power to impose sanctions of any kind on UNC or its athletic department. And it appears that the NCAA, for whatever reason, may be willing to accept that position.

Putting aside for a moment the fundamental notions of fair play and honor in athletic competition, the shamelessness of UNC officials and supporters in discarding all semblance of institutional academic integrity for the purpose of protecting purported athletic "achievements" -- which have now been revealed as a fraud and are (or should be) regarded by everyone outside the UNC community as worthless -- is utterly disgraceful. In effect, UNC officials are declaring to the world that the University of North Carolina is willing to award college course credit for work that could be done by an average junior high student. Consider for a moment how severely that undermines the myth of the "Carolina Way" -- a concept that once justified a sense of pride in winning on the court or field while maintaining commendable standards of academic excellence, but which now has been reduced to a perverse joke.

You suggest, as many UNC supporters contend, that no one should be able to ascribe fault to UNC for using courses with no genuine academic content to preserve the eligibility of athletes, because "the whole landscape of the NCAA model [is] poisoned," and conclude by saying that you're "just a basketball fan." That may a convenient way of trying to divert the unwanted attention or shrugging off the allegations of wrongdoing, but I've seen no UNC supporter present any evidence to prove that other schools have engaged in such a blatant artifice to prop up its athletic program -- much less a school whose fans have crowed so long and loudly about the supposed moral superiority of their coaches, players, and program. While I understand your statement that you're "just a basketball fan," and I appreciate your longstanding loyalty to UNC as the program you've followed for many years, and I respect enormously your willingness to continue participating in this forum as a rival fan despite being on the receiving end of some unfriendly responses, you should certainly understand that once you've waded into this discussion to express your opinions about the issues in defense of UNC's position, you must in fairness be prepared for responses from those who harbor differing views.

Finally, you say that it doesn't seem fair to you that "the reputation of many good people in athletics who I'm guessing probably didn't have any idea those courses had crossed somebody's academic standard line [is being attacked as they are] being held responsible and called a cheat." In response to that, I offer two thoughts. First, we all know that you admire and respect Roy Williams. If you believe that Roy wasn't aware of the scheme to use meaningless classes and bend the rules regarding course registration and grades as a means of maintaining the eligibility of athletes, then that is your right, and there's no point in anyone here trying to persuade you otherwise. But by the same token, I don't think that you or other UNC fans should be surprised or offended that others find it difficult to believe that Roy could be completely unaware of the shenanigans when his players were never failing any courses, and in some cases were being transformed from academic risks to Dean's List in one semester. Second, whether or not he was aware, Roy has reportedly pocketed substantial monetary bonuses each year based on his players' purported academic "achievements"; do you think it's fair for him to retain those bonuses now that the truth about how those players obtained their good grades is known? Some might reasonably question whether an honorable person would have a clear conscience in keeping those bonuses after learning that they were not honestly earned -- that they were, in fact, "fruit of the poisonous tree." And in the eyes of some observers, the fact that he sees nothing wrong with retaining those fraudulently obtained bonuses could be construed as tacit approval of the misconduct by which it was obtained -- much like UNC's insistence on keeping the wins and titles its athletic department obtained through the wrongdoing of UNC's staff and faculty.

[GGLC]

I must spread some comments around before commenting on Stray Gator again.

[OldPhiKap]

I must spread some comments around before commenting on Stray Gator again.

I find myself in that same position a lot. On a post:spork ratio, SG must be nearing a HOF batting average.

(I am way below the Mendoza line, but at least I own it)

[devildeac]

I must spread some comments around before commenting on Stray Gator again.


I find myself in that same position a lot. On a post:spork ratio, SG must be nearing a HOF batting average.

(I am way below the Mendoza line, but at least I own it)

Ditto. Helluva response, Stray. Many thanks for taking the time to compose this. The folks at PackPride and DBR would like to nominate you for immediate membership on the ncaa COI. ;)

[NSDukeFan]

I am guessing Stray Gator has one of the highest spork to post ratios. I would have to check KenPom' s efficiency scores to be sure though.

[DukieInKansas]

I must spread some comments around before commenting on Stray Gator again.


I find myself in that same position a lot. On a post:spork ratio, SG must be nearing a HOF batting average.

(I am way below the Mendoza line, but at least I own it)


Ditto. Helluva response, Stray. Many thanks for taking the time to compose this. The folks at PackPride and DBR would like to nominate you for immediate membership on the ncaa COI. ;)


I am guessing Stray Gator has one of the highest spork to post ratios. I would have to check KenPom' s efficiency scores to be sure though.

Sporked SG for y'all. Can someone please translate SG's spork to post ratio in terms of cinder blocks?

[rasputin]

I am guessing Stray Gator has one of the highest spork to post ratios. I would have to check KenPom' s efficiency scores to be sure though.

Well, and Stray doesn't play enough "true" road games.

[SamHouston]

The mission of any university is to "seek truth". When that is institutionally suppressed to Make Money and Protect The Brand, the university loses its reason to exist.

[martydoesntfoul]

At the very low risk of sounding overly cynical, I've got to believe UNC-HW structured the Wainstein investigation in such a way that they knew they'd eventually argue it was inadmissible for the NCAA. If this is the reason basketball and football were dropped from the NOA, how awful. If the COI takes a similar stance, something is most certainly rotten in Denmark.

So maybe the NCAA issues a slap on the wrist and promises to tighten the loopholes, and that's the end of it. However, if they hammer UNC-HW, what recourse if any does UNC-HW have? Because I see no possible way they would take the NCAA to court given the discovery that would surely follow...

[sagegrouse]

At the very low risk of sounding overly cynical, I've got to believe UNC-HW structured the Wainstein investigation in such a way that they knew they'd eventually argue it was inadmissible for the NCAA. If this is the reason basketball and football were dropped from the NOA, how awful. If the COI takes a similar stance, something is most certainly rotten in Denmark.

So maybe the NCAA issues a slap on the wrist and promises to tighten the loopholes, and that's the end of it. However, if they hammer UNC-HW, what recourse if any does UNC-HW have? Because I see no possible way they would take the NCAA to court given the discovery that would surely follow...

UNC at that time was a house divided. The Board of Trustees, probably 'cause they weren't getting the truth or even a straight story from Bubba & Co., hired The Cadwallader firm on its own. IIRC (yeah, I know, there's always a first time) both the NCAA investigators and the UNC compliance staff were involved in the investigation. Objecting to the inclusion of the results at this late date is simply -- what's the word? -- oh, yes -- pettifoggery.

[NSDukeFan]

So now Denmark is going to be banned from the Olympics for UNC and Russia's cheating?

[devildeac]

So now Denmark is going to be banned from the Olympics for UNC and Russia's cheating?

Funny stuff.

Yep, this time Cleveland State is off the hook. :rolleyes:

[madscavenger]

Query: When Mark Emmert and John Swofford go to lunch do they split the tab, or does the Rams Club pick it up directly?

[BigWayne]

Fomer Daily Tarheel editor writes an oped in the N&O (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article94419977.html)


But if bogus courses designed to assist underachieving athletes is not NCAA business, what would be? Free whiskey for the ladies’ field hockey teams?

[PackMan97]

For those unable to, I have sporked Stray Gator.

You have made me cry, in a good and bad way.

As for those that didn't know and are "innocent", I say it is their job to know. The coaches get bonuses based on academic peformance. If their job has nothing to do with academics why do they get bonuses when their kids meet an APR guideline? are named an Academic All-ACC or All-American? etc. The truth is in the contracts. If they are getting paid for academic performance of their athelets, it's their job to know.

As for staffers and others affiliated. They interact with these kids. They know which ones are more academically endowed than others. They know how much time they spend on school work during a road trip, or how often they are in study hall, or complaining about having to do a project late into the night despite having just played a game, or having a game tommorrow. They know. Or they choose to be ignorant and pretend that it's none of their business.

[77devil]

For those unable to, I have sporked Stray Gator.

You have made me cry, in a good and bad way.

As for those that didn't know and are "innocent", I say it is their job to know. The coaches get bonuses based on academic peformance. If their job has nothing to do with academics why do they get bonuses when their kids meet an APR guideline? are named an Academic All-ACC or All-American? etc. The truth is in the contracts. If they are getting paid for academic performance of their athelets, it's their job to know.

As for staffers and others affiliated. They interact with these kids. They know which ones are more academically endowed than others. They know how much time they spend on school work during a road trip, or how often they are in study hall, or complaining about having to do a project late into the night despite having just played a game, or having a game tommorrow. They know. Or they choose to be ignorant and pretend that it's none of their business.

Stray's recitations are compelling but they won't change the view of Wheat or any other UNC fan at this point, who either don't care about athletic and academic integrity or are in permanent denial.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Apologies for the delay in responding over the weekend.

No worries, I had a long weekend too. As you know, there is no upside here for me to have this conversation on this board, but I will anyways, because I believe in hearing from all sides when I want to make a decision. I tried to read up some more on this mess the last couple of days...from the UNC perspective, since I see plenty of the negative perspective here. I'll respond to you since over the years you've always treated me with respect, and I owe you that same respect. I didn't want to start this conversation here until after the NCAA finally weighed in, but what the heck...

I applaud your acknowledgement that both the university as a whole and the athletic department specifically should be punished if the evidence shows that "weak" courses were used to facilitate athlete eligibility. As I understand the substance of the Wainstein Report, and the UNC Administration's statements in response to that Report, there is abundant evidence to support the conclusion that numerous such courses were in fact offered to, and taken for credit by, athletes. Indeed, UNC's own records reflect that some of these courses so weak that they required no class attendance at all and the student had to do nothing more than submit a short paper to earn a passing grade; in some cases, the staff members who were employed to provide academic support for the athletic department and actually supervised the scheme were allowed to assign the grades for the classes, and gave the athletes high grades even though they knew that the papers submitted by those athletes were plagiarized.

I like to think I'm looking at this with an open mind, and my final decision on what to really think happened has not been made, yet.
Quick response: Yes, punish the athletes, and anybody else who assisted plagiarized work to be accepted for a class.
My trouble is,...I'm having a problem wading through the inflammatory words in all this to get straight facts without somebody else's opinion getting in the way. You and Wainstein are using the word "scheme" and I've seen "fake" used to describe those classes. They were obviously "sub-standard"...and not set up within acceptable standards of oversight by the academic leaders...(and there should be some punishment for that to UNC), But "fake"? That doesn't seem to be accurate to me...I think "below acceptable standards" is more accurate.
And "Scheme"? I've read where the emails show Crowder was motivated by a misguided desire to help struggling students as a whole, including athletes, and was allowed to create the substandard classes by an inattentive department chair. If that's true, and I've seen nothing as evidence to point to those classes set up at the direction of anybody else for the purpose of keeping athletes eligible, it's not a "scheme"... it's a lack of professionalism required by the academic administration...(and UNC the institution should be held accountable for that).
I'm not naive enough to think the athletic department didn't take advantage of what they considered "easy" classes to help with eligibility issues...but that's a different thing than calling the basketball coach, for instance, a cheat for relying on academic administrators to maintain quality class structure.


So far as I can tell, UNC officials and their attorneys are making no effort to directly refute, or apologize for, the fact that this scheme was allowed to flourish at the school for decades. Rather, in a display of audacity and contempt that would be laughable if it were not so astonishing, UNC's officials and lawyers defiantly proclaim that this scheme to maintain the eligibility of athletes by enabling them to take courses that required no attendance or actual work must be deemed creditable because the courses were open to other students. Never mind that (a) the course descriptions were deliberately misleading to discourage legitimate students from enrolling; (b) in the classes that had multiple students -- i.e., the ones that weren't "independent study" courses -- the number of athletes was heavily disproportionate to the number of non-athletes; (c) in some cases, the non-athletes who were allowed to register consisted mainly of students characterized by the support staff members as "frat boys" who heard about the courses through word of mouth, and the support staff members who supervised the scheme only allowed a limited number of those non-athletes to register to create the impression that the courses were legitimate; and (d) in some cases, staff members allowed athletes to withdraw from or be added to a course outside the prescribed time periods for the purpose of ensuring that they did not become academically ineligible. Despite these circumstances, UNC now insists that because the athletes had to comply with some minimal requirement to receive course credit, and because the courses were in some sense "open" to non-athletes, the NCAA has no power to impose sanctions of any kind on UNC or its athletic department. And it appears that the NCAA, for whatever reason, may be willing to accept that position.

Ive seen several instances where UNC has apologized for those AFAM classes. But can we expect them to apologize for a "scheme" when they say there was no scheme? It looks to me like the classes got away from their,(the institutions),evidently poor system of overseeing course integrity and they are trying to cover their backsides. That's different than believing they were deliberately set up by the administrators and are "covering up" for some conspiracy to protect athletes.
Am I being naive, maybe, but where is the evidence beyond Crowder and Dr. N setting this all up for her stated reasons of helping all students and Dr.N's proven ineptitude as a department chair, and greed to get paid for work he wasn't doing?
Seems to me, with all the investigating, if this was the conspiracy everybody here wants to believe, there'd be a lot more evidence that would have come out showing people beyond Crowder/Dr. N helping to set it up.


Putting aside for a moment the fundamental notions of fair play and honor in athletic competition, the shamelessness of UNC officials and supporters in discarding all semblance of institutional academic integrity for the purpose of protecting purported athletic "achievements" -- which have now been revealed as a fraud and are (or should be) regarded by everyone outside the UNC community as worthless -- is utterly disgraceful. In effect, UNC officials are declaring to the world that the University of North Carolina is willing to award college course credit for work that could be done by an average junior high student. Consider for a moment how severely that undermines the myth of the "Carolina Way" -- a concept that once justified a sense of pride in winning on the court or field while maintaining commendable standards of academic excellence, but which now has been reduced to a perverse joke.

From what I read, UNC has acknowledged its failure time and again to live up to its standards with those courses and has taken the necessary steps to ensure that it never happens again. You're right about those classes being disgraceful, it damaged UNC's academic goals and the schools perception as a high level academic institution.
As a fan, the Carolina Way starts with family, sticking together...good times and tough...and yes, UNC has some work to do to restore their reputation of quality academics.

You suggest, as many UNC supporters contend, that no one should be able to ascribe fault to UNC for using courses with no genuine academic content to preserve the eligibility of athletes, because "the whole landscape of the NCAA model [is] poisoned," and conclude by saying that you're "just a basketball fan." That may a convenient way of trying to divert the unwanted attention or shrugging off the allegations of wrongdoing, but I've seen no UNC supporter present any evidence to prove that other schools have engaged in such a blatant artifice to prop up its athletic program -- much less a school whose fans have crowed so long and loudly about the supposed moral superiority of their coaches, players, and program. While I understand your statement that you're "just a basketball fan," and I appreciate your longstanding loyalty to UNC as the program you've followed for many years, and I respect enormously your willingness to continue participating in this forum as a rival fan despite being on the receiving end of some unfriendly responses, you should certainly understand that once you've waded into this discussion to express your opinions about the issues in defense of UNC's position, you must in fairness be prepared for responses from those who harbor differing views.

I'm fine with responses, like yours, that contribute to a friendly/spirited discussion, especially when some comments make me consider something I might have missed or didn't fully understand. I have thick skin.
And I understand when I get those juvenile responses that just attack me personally, it's human nature to lash out when someone can't or won't take the time to form an argument and comment respectfully. It is the Internet after all.
As to your point about a UNC supporter crowing about moral superiority, I think that's an unfair assessment that's smacks me as rival fan bias, because I'm a UNC fan and been commenting on things around here for 20yrs and I hope I'm viewed as just plain stubborn much more so that somebody trying to take the moral high ground.
But I get it, both fan bases love to look at the other as snooty...for me? Whatever...
As for the NCAA...I think the whole system is hypocritical and unfair to athletes and would love to see it fall apart. But that's another argument for another day.

Finally, you say that it doesn't seem fair to you that "the reputation of many good people in athletics who I'm guessing probably didn't have any idea those courses had crossed somebody's academic standard line [is being attacked as they are] being held responsible and called a cheat." In response to that, I offer two thoughts. First, we all know that you admire and respect Roy Williams. If you believe that Roy wasn't aware of the scheme to use meaningless classes and bend the rules regarding course registration and grades as a means of maintaining the eligibility of athletes, then that is your right, and there's no point in anyone here trying to persuade you otherwise. But by the same token, I don't think that you or other UNC fans should be surprised or offended that others find it difficult to believe that Roy could be completely unaware of the shenanigans when his players were never failing any courses, and in some cases were being transformed from academic risks to Dean's List in one semester. Second, whether or not he was aware, Roy has reportedly pocketed substantial monetary bonuses each year based on his players' purported academic "achievements"; do you think it's fair for him to retain those bonuses now that the truth about how those players obtained their good grades is known? Some might reasonably question whether an honorable person would have a clear conscience in keeping those bonuses after learning that they were not honestly earned -- that they were, in fact, "fruit of the poisonous tree." And in the eyes of some observers, the fact that he sees nothing wrong with retaining those fraudulently obtained bonuses could be construed as tacit approval of the misconduct by which it was obtained -- much like UNC's insistence on keeping the wins and titles its athletic department obtained through the wrongdoing of UNC's staff and faculty.

We know Roy had nothing to do with setting up those courses, and there is zero evidence that he knew them to be anything other than classes approved by the academic administrators. So I can't see any responsibility for this mess being put on him, or the players. It's on the entire institution to be punished for that, along with the individuals responsible for setting them up in the first place.
.

Again iPad challenged to reply...

[Stray Gator]

Again iPad challenged to reply...

Wheat,

I appreciate your willingness to proceed with this discussion. However, so long as you continue to base your position on the premise that the entire problem at UNC was limited to the actions taken by Julius Nyang'oro and Deborah Crowder, acting independently without the knowledge of any other people in the administration or athletics department or support staff, which enabled some athletes to maintain passing grades in certain "easy" AFAM courses, we are just talking past one another. We know that UNC officials and supporters want to confine the issue to that narrow set of facts, just as the administration directed Wainstein not to investigate evidence of similar "irregularities" or "anomalous courses" outside the AFAM Department. But the record flatly refutes that premise, because the e-mails and other documents attached to the Wainstein Report and subsequently disclosed by others employed by UNC clearly show that a much larger network of "irregular" or "anomalous" courses, extending into other departments (including, as I recall, Naval Science, Exercise & Sports Science, and even Philosophy), was used to help maintain the academic eligibility of athletes at UNC. To suggest that all of that activity was conducted entirely by Nyang'oro and Crowder, without the active involvement of other UNC faculty or staff members, and solely for the altruistic purpose of helping a few disadvantaged student-athletes earn a college degree, defies credulity.

But once again let me emphasize: Debating whether there was an orchestrated "scheme," or whether anyone else in the administration or athletics department was involved, or whether it's fair to punish coaches and athletes absent proof that they were complicit in the misconduct, completely misses the point -- for the same reason that it doesn't matter whether Roy "had nothing to do with setting up those courses." All of the explanations and excuses and rationales in the world cannot alter the fundamental undisputed fact that UNC (both the institution as a whole and the athletics department in particular) and Roy benefited unfairly by allowing athletes to compete who would not have been eligible to play if acceptable standards and the regular rules had been applied. Simply stated, my position is that UNC and Roy should not be allowed to profit from the wrongdoing of those who used improper means to produce those profits. Ask yourself these questions: If a member of my family, acting without my knowledge, embezzles from his or her employer and uses the stolen funds to buy me a new car, would you think it fair for me to keep the car based on the fact that I had nothing to do with the misconduct that made the acquisition possible? If I am the owner of a business and one of my employees, acting without my knowledge, violates regulations to produce some goods or services that gives my company a competitive advantage in the marketplace, resulting in my company receiving record profits and winning some industry awards, would you think it fair for me to retain the profits and awards based on the fact that I personally had nothing to do with the misconduct? Those are, I believe, apt analogies for the situation facing UNC -- and that's even if we accept all of the explanations and excuses and rationales that UNC officials and attorneys and supporters are asserting in defense of their position that no sanctions should be imposed and no wins or titles should be vacated.

In the end, we both say we want to ensure a result that is "fair." I don't believe that allowing UNC and Roy to simply walk away from the wrongdoing that made all those wins and titles and bonuses possible without any consequence is, under any reasonable interpretation of the concept, a fair result.

[MarkD83]

Wheat,

All of the explanations and excuses and rationales in the world cannot alter the fundamental undisputed fact that UNC (both the institution as a whole and the athletics department in particular) and Roy benefited unfairly by allowing athletes to compete who would not have been eligible to play if acceptable standards and the regular rules had been applied. Simply stated, my position is that UNC and Roy should not be allowed to profit from the wrongdoing of those who used improper means to produce those profits. Ask yourself these questions: If a member of my family, acting without my knowledge, embezzles from his or her employer and uses the stolen funds to buy me a new car, would you think it fair for me to keep the car based on the fact that I had nothing to do with the misconduct that made the acquisition possible? If I am the owner of a business and one of my employees, acting without my knowledge, violates regulations to produce some goods or services that gives my company a competitive advantage in the marketplace, resulting in my company receiving record profits and winning some industry awards, would you think it fair for me to retain the profits and awards based on the fact that I personally had nothing to do with the misconduct? Those are, I believe, apt analogies for the situation facing UNC --



I like the logical clarity of this post.

It also brings up the issue of ethics and morals. A person or organization with high moral character would return the car or return the awards or try to come to some equitable way to return the profits. Those with low moral character would fight making restitution with every means at their disposal even if the costs far exceed the original gains.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat,

I appreciate your willingness to proceed with this discussion. However, so long as you continue to base your position on the premise that the entire problem at UNC was limited to the actions taken by Julius Nyang'oro and Deborah Crowder, acting independently without the knowledge of any other people in the administration or athletics department or support staff, which enabled some athletes to maintain passing grades in certain "easy" AFAM courses, we are just talking past one another. We know that UNC officials and supporters want to confine the issue to that narrow set of facts, just as the administration directed Wainstein not to investigate evidence of similar "irregularities" or "anomalous courses" outside the AFAM Department. But the record flatly refutes that premise, because the e-mails and other documents attached to the Wainstein Report and subsequently disclosed by others employed by UNC clearly show that a much larger network of "irregular" or "anomalous" courses, extending into other departments (including, as I recall, Naval Science, Exercise & Sports Science, and even Philosophy), was used to help maintain the academic eligibility of athletes at UNC. To suggest that all of that activity was conducted entirely by Nyang'oro and Crowder, without the active involvement of other UNC faculty or staff members, and solely for the altruistic purpose of helping a few disadvantaged student-athletes earn a college degree, defies credulity.

But once again let me emphasize: Debating whether there was an orchestrated "scheme," or whether anyone else in the administration or athletics department was involved, or whether it's fair to punish coaches and athletes absent proof that they were complicit in the misconduct, completely misses the point -- for the same reason that it doesn't matter whether Roy "had nothing to do with setting up those courses." All of the explanations and excuses and rationales in the world cannot alter the fundamental undisputed fact that UNC (both the institution as a whole and the athletics department in particular) and Roy benefited unfairly by allowing athletes to compete who would not have been eligible to play if acceptable standards and the regular rules had been applied. Simply stated, my position is that UNC and Roy should not be allowed to profit from the wrongdoing of those who used improper means to produce those profits. Ask yourself these questions: If a member of my family, acting without my knowledge, embezzles from his or her employer and uses the stolen funds to buy me a new car, would you think it fair for me to keep the car based on the fact that I had nothing to do with the misconduct that made the acquisition possible? If I am the owner of a business and one of my employees, acting without my knowledge, violates regulations to produce some goods or services that gives my company a competitive advantage in the marketplace, resulting in my company receiving record profits and winning some industry awards, would you think it fair for me to retain the profits and awards based on the fact that I personally had nothing to do with the misconduct? Those are, I believe, apt analogies for the situation facing UNC -- and that's even if we accept all of the explanations and excuses and rationales that UNC officials and attorneys and supporters are asserting in defense of their position that no sanctions should be imposed and no wins or titles should be vacated.

In the end, we both say we want to ensure a result that is "fair." I don't believe that allowing UNC and Roy to simply walk away from the wrongdoing that made all those wins and titles and bonuses possible without any consequence is, under any reasonable interpretation of the concept, a fair result.

To play the analogy game, Lawyers represent companies that do things wrong all the time...doesn't make the lawyers the bad guys. And when the company gets sued for those wrong things, do they give back the billable hours dollars for representing that company?

It's about blame, and I don't see Roy or the players as ones to blame here.
It doesn't matter to you and not a big point for you because you are not Roy Williams...who steadfastly denies having any knowledge of classes that were substandard and there's been no evidence he did know presented.

Assuming that's true, it's not fair to blame him.

Roy values his reputation, and I've never seen anything to make me think his reputation as a great coach who plays by the rules should be challenged in all this.

The lack of integrity in those classes was terrible and can't be tolerated. We all agree on that. UNC should be punished, seriously.

Blame is another thing...where does that lie? I certainly don't think it lies with Roy.

If the NCAA wants to punish UNC hard, I'm OK with it because the institution deserves it after allowing those courses to become routine.

If somebody with that power thinks the best way to make the punishment clear for UNC's lack of academic control is to strip UNC basketball titles, I wouldn't think that very fair to the players or coaches, but in the bigger picture, if that's what they want to do to get the point across to University leaders that courses like that won't be tolerated, OK by me.

[kmspeaks]

To play the analogy game, Lawyers represent companies that do things wrong all the time...doesn't make the lawyers the bad guys. And when the company gets sued for those wrong things, do they give back the billable hours dollars for representing that company?

It's about blame, and I don't see Roy or the players as ones to blame here.
It doesn't matter to you and not a big point for you because you are not Roy Williams...who steadfastly denies having any knowledge of classes that were substandard and there's been no evidence he did know presented.

Assuming that's true, it's not fair to blame him.

Roy values his reputation, and I've never seen anything to make me think his reputation as a great coach who plays by the rules should be challenged in all this.

The lack of integrity in those classes was terrible and can't be tolerated. We all agree on that. UNC should be punished, seriously.

Blame is another thing...where does that lie? I certainly don't think it lies with Roy.

If the NCAA wants to punish UNC hard, I'm OK with it because the institution deserves it after allowing those courses to become routine.

If somebody with that power thinks the best way to make the punishment clear for UNC's lack of academic control is to strip UNC basketball titles, I wouldn't think that very fair to the players or coaches, but in the bigger picture, if that's what they want to do to get the point across to University leaders that courses like that won't be tolerated, OK by me.

Why not? The players knew the classes they were taking were not legitimate. They knew they were getting credit for plagiarized papers. They knew they shouldn't have been eligible.

[Pghdukie]

How about "Institutional Control" ?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Why not? The players knew the classes they were taking were not legitimate. They knew they were getting credit for plagiarized papers. They knew they shouldn't have been eligible.

There was some plagiarism, eviidently, but not by most students. And that should be punished just as it is in other schools.

I think it's unrealistic to think the students should be expected to know what they are told to do for a class was not "ligitimate" by the supposedly responsible adults.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

How about "Institutional Control" ?

I think it's pretty clear that there was not much institutional control over those classes, and UNC should be held accountable, but not necessarily the basketball coaches, players who didn't have anything to do with administering them.
So far, I draw a clear distinction between the basketball program and the academic leaders when it comes to assigning blame for the substandard classes...
If the basketball program is stripped of titles as punishment, it will be because academics let everybody down and the entire school as a "team" will pay the price.

[Stray Gator]

To play the analogy game, Lawyers represent companies that do things wrong all the time...doesn't make the lawyers the bad guys. And when the company gets sued for those wrong things, do they give back the billable hours dollars for representing that company?

It's about blame, and I don't see Roy or the players as ones to blame here.
It doesn't matter to you and not a big point for you because you are not Roy Williams...who steadfastly denies having any knowledge of classes that were substandard and there's been no evidence he did know presented.

Assuming that's true, it's not fair to blame him.

Roy values his reputation, and I've never seen anything to make me think his reputation as a great coach who plays by the rules should be challenged in all this.

The lack of integrity in those classes was terrible and can't be tolerated. We all agree on that. UNC should be punished, seriously.

Blame is another thing...where does that lie? I certainly don't think it lies with Roy.

If the NCAA wants to punish UNC hard, I'm OK with it because the institution deserves it after allowing those courses to become routine.

If somebody with that power thinks the best way to make the punishment clear for UNC's lack of academic control is to strip UNC basketball titles, I wouldn't think that very fair to the players or coaches, but in the bigger picture, if that's what they want to do to get the point across to University leaders that courses like that won't be tolerated, OK by me.

Your proposed parallel analogy doesn't work because it addresses materially different circumstances and relationships. When companies have done something wrong, they hire lawyers to represent them in defending against the lawsuit or prosecution, not to bear the responsibility for the company's wrongdoing. Stated more simply, when a company profits from misconduct that violates the rules, if the case results in a ruling by which the court imposes a fine or orders disgorgement of those profits, no one would rationally contend that the lawyers who were hired to represent the company as counsel in the case after the misconduct had already been committed should pay the fine or make the restitution.

You want to make this a matter of blame, and maintain that Roy shouldn't be punished because he steadfastly denies being involved in or having knowledge of the academic irregularities. For me, there are two basic problems with your position.

First, the question of whether UNC should be required to vacate wins and titles that it accumulated during the years when players were enrolled in the bogus courses, and whether Roy ought to pay back the bonuses he collected for the academic "achievements" of those players -- which we now know were not legitimately earned -- has nothing to do with blame. It's about doing what is fair and right and just. UNC procured those wins and titles by breaking the rules. Whether Roy and the players are at fault for the rule-breaking is completely immaterial, because they won those games by not competing fairly. Whether the coaches knew about the eligibility issues or not, when they played athletes who in fact would not have been academically eligible if the proper standards and rules had been applied, they deprived UNC's opponents of the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Consequently, in my opinion, those wins are the equivalent of stolen property. In the eyes of the law, as well as every moral code with which I am familiar, a person is not entitled to retain stolen property, even if that property was stolen by someone else without the person's knowledge or complicity.

Second, even if you truly believe that Roy was not aware of the academic improprieties, I don't agree that he is thereby rendered blameless. In fact, I would say that it is perhaps a more stinging indictment of Roy if he wasn't aware, because I believe that it is ultimately his responsibility, as the head of the program, to see that his players comply with the rules and requirements prescribed for the student-athletes in his charge. He recruited these players, so I believe that he had to be aware that many if not most of them had shaky academic records in high school. And I absolutely believe that when he recruited each of these players, he looked their parents in the eyes and assured them that he and his staff would look after their sons and make sure they would have an opportunity to earn a college degree. Yet now we are asked to believe that once those recruits were on campus, Roy had no responsibility to be concerned about or pay attention to their academic progress or their activities off the court. If Roy never noticed that his players were somehow being magically transformed from academically at-risk high schoolers to Dean's List scholars, and never even suspected that some rules and requirements were being bent in the process, then he was either deliberately looking the other way or was being hilariously obtuse. We obviously disagree about his blameworthiness, but in the final analysis, I find it difficult to comprehend how you can absolve him of all responsibility.

[PackMan97]

I think it's pretty clear that there was not much institutional control over those classes, and UNC should be held accountable, but not necessarily the basketball coaches, players who didn't have anything to do with administering them.
So far, I draw a clear distinction between the basketball program and the academic leaders when it comes to assigning blame for the substandard classes...
If the basketball program is stripped of titles as punishment, it will be because academics let everybody down and the entire school as a "team" will pay the price.

Wheat, who were the earliest enrollees in the course in question? That will shed significant light onto the origin of the scandal.

Personally, I agree, stripping wins from Wiliams would be unfair. Coaches Doherty, Guthridge and Smith need to have quite a few vacated as well...well, not Doherty he will only need a couple stripped. :cool:

[Tappan Zee Devil]

Never, never, never, ever get into an argument with Stray - he will slice you up with impeccable logic, leaving you wriggling on the floor without a single way out.
This is something everyone on DBR learns.

If ever I am in Florida and need a lawyer, there is no question where I go.

[Pghdukie]

Students talk all the time about this class, this professor, easy class, hard class, etc. For AFAM to be going on as long as it did - lots, and LOTS of student/athletes knew of this fraud, and we're happy participants. Just my own thoughts

[devildeac]

I think it's pretty clear that there was not much institutional control over those classes, and UNC should be held accountable, but not necessarily the basketball coaches, players who didn't have anything to do with administering them.
So far, I draw a clear distinction between the basketball program and the academic leaders when it comes to assigning blame for the substandard classes...
If the basketball program is stripped of titles as punishment, it will be because academics let everybody down and the entire school as a "team" will pay the price.

Wheat,

Serious question: What about FB, WSoc, WBB and BB? What are your thoughts/feelings on those?

[ricks68]

Actually, from my point of view (and probably scads of others), it is apparent that there was institutional control. That's the blatant biggest problem as far as I'm concerned.:mad:

When you have power point presentations by academic advisors explaining how the university will no longer let players take fake courses with contrived grades and a dean involved in the conspiracy, that sounds pretty much to me like the institution controlling the scheme.:rolleyes:

ricks

[oldnavy]

Your proposed parallel analogy doesn't work because it addresses materially different circumstances and relationships. When companies have done something wrong, they hire lawyers to represent them in defending against the lawsuit or prosecution, not to bear the responsibility for the company's wrongdoing. Stated more simply, when a company profits from misconduct that violates the rules, if the case results in a ruling by which the court imposes a fine or orders disgorgement of those profits, no one would rationally contend that the lawyers who were hired to represent the company as counsel in the case after the misconduct had already been committed should pay the fine or make the restitution.

You want to make this a matter of blame, and maintain that Roy shouldn't be punished because he steadfastly denies being involved in or having knowledge of the academic irregularities. For me, there are two basic problems with your position.

First, the question of whether UNC should be required to vacate wins and titles that it accumulated during the years when players were enrolled in the bogus courses, and whether Roy ought to pay back the bonuses he collected for the academic "achievements" of those players -- which we now know were not legitimately earned -- has nothing to do with blame. It's about doing what is fair and right and just. UNC procured those wins and titles by breaking the rules. Whether Roy and the players are at fault for the rule-breaking is completely immaterial, because they won those games by not competing fairly. Whether the coaches knew about the eligibility issues or not, when they played athletes who in fact would not have been academically eligible if the proper standards and rules had been applied, they deprived UNC's opponents of the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Consequently, in my opinion, those wins are the equivalent of stolen property. In the eyes of the law, as well as every moral code with which I am familiar, a person is not entitled to retain stolen property, even if that property was stolen by someone else without the person's knowledge or complicity.

Second, even if you truly believe that Roy was not aware of the academic improprieties, I don't agree that he is thereby rendered blameless. In fact, I would say that it is perhaps a more stinging indictment of Roy if he wasn't aware, because I believe that it is ultimately his responsibility, as the head of the program, to see that his players comply with the rules and requirements prescribed for the student-athletes in his charge. He recruited these players, so I believe that he had to be aware that many if not most of them had shaky academic records in high school. And I absolutely believe that when he recruited each of these players, he looked their parents in the eyes and assured them that he and his staff would look after their sons and make sure they would have an opportunity to earn a college degree. Yet now we are asked to believe that once those recruits were on campus, Roy had no responsibility to be concerned about or pay attention to their academic progress or their activities off the court. If Roy never noticed that his players were somehow being magically transformed from academically at-risk high schoolers to Dean's List scholars, and never even suspected that some rules and requirements were being bent in the process, then he was either deliberately looking the other way or was being hilariously obtuse. We obviously disagree about his blameworthiness, but in the final analysis, I find it difficult to comprehend how you can absolve him of all responsibility.

Roy "knew" enough to tell them to stop taking AFAM as a major. He "knew" enough to boast about how he noticed that the players were congregating in the AFAM major. So, if he knew what majors they were in, he had to know the grades and if he knew the grades he knew the class names, and if he knew the class names he knew they were independent studies. He knew, or he would never have said anything about the AFAM major in the first place. Why would he?

So, Roy knew. No one has ever answered the question of why Roy Freaking Williams would give a flying poot about young black men majoring in AFAM studies, if in fact he didn't know that it may come back and bite HIM in the backside. Remember one thing about Roy Williams, and that is he is VERY much concerned about ROY WILLIAMS...

Roy knew, and anyone who wants to say he didn't is just whistling past the grave yard, or just plain naive.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Never, never, never, ever get into an argument with Stray - he will slice you up with impeccable logic, leaving you wriggling on the floor without a single way out.
This is something everyone on DBR learns.

If ever I am in Florida and need a lawyer, there is no question where I go.

I would hope Stray could shape a better argument than a fishing guide after his training and at least 30 + years of practice as a lawyer, especially one not smart enough to avoid this whole conversation here. :)

[77devil]

To play the analogy game, Lawyers represent companies that do things wrong all the time...doesn't make the lawyers the bad guys. And when the company gets sued for those wrong things, do they give back the billable hours dollars for representing that company?

It's about blame, and I don't see Roy or the players as ones to blame here.
It doesn't matter to you and not a big point for you because you are not Roy Williams...who steadfastly denies having any knowledge of classes that were substandard and there's been no evidence he did know presented.

Assuming that's true, it's not fair to blame him.

Roy values his reputation, and I've never seen anything to make me think his reputation as a great coach who plays by the rules should be challenged in all this.

The lack of integrity in those classes was terrible and can't be tolerated. We all agree on that. UNC should be punished, seriously.

Blame is another thing...where does that lie? I certainly don't think it lies with Roy.

If the NCAA wants to punish UNC hard, I'm OK with it because the institution deserves it after allowing those courses to become routine.

If somebody with that power thinks the best way to make the punishment clear for UNC's lack of academic control is to strip UNC basketball titles, I wouldn't think that very fair to the players or coaches, but in the bigger picture, if that's what they want to do to get the point across to University leaders that courses like that won't be tolerated, OK by me.

Billable hours is not remotely analogous. It is not inappropriate to earn fair pay defending the guilty.

You claim to have read up on the subject so let me suggest you read the Wainstein report in its entirety, including the exhibits, before coming here and presenting a straw man and citing flimsy sources like the Robeson or whatever it was. Wainstein called it a scheme because of the reams of data he uncovered that demonstrated it was organized and systemic. To argue otherwise, as you have tried, without reading the definitive primary source is lazy.

You keep harping on a belief that Roy didn't know while surely knowing that his alleged ignorance is irrelevant to established NCAA precedent that coaches are responsible regardless.

Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. The readers of this thread are well informed of the UNC party line. So you are not bringing a new perspective to the discussion, and you certainly won't persuade anyone. So what's the point?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat, who were the earliest enrollees in the course in question? That will shed significant light onto the origin of the scandal...
:

Here's a couple of quotes I found from this article (https://unverifiedthefilm.net/2016/08/05/a-counter-qa-on-the-unc-scandal/) that addresses your very question...

"If Crowder had devised the paper-class”scheme” specifically for athletes, we’d likely see significantly more athletes than non-athletes in those first few classes. Instead, we see the opposite: the first four paper classes had only 11 athletes enrolled (two men’s basketball players, four football players, and five women’s basketball players), compared to 46 non-athletes.
Overall, there were more paper classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled (20) than there were paper classes with exclusively athletes enrolled (18). Again, if Crowder had devised the classes specifically to benefit athletes, we likely wouldn’t see so many classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled."

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Your proposed parallel analogy doesn't work because it addresses materially different circumstances and relationships. When companies have done something wrong, they hire lawyers to represent them in defending against the lawsuit or prosecution, not to bear the responsibility for the company's wrongdoing. Stated more simply, when a company profits from misconduct that violates the rules, if the case results in a ruling by which the court imposes a fine or orders disgorgement of those profits, no one would rationally contend that the lawyers who were hired to represent the company as counsel in the case after the misconduct had already been committed should pay the fine or make the restitution.

You want to make this a matter of blame, and maintain that Roy shouldn't be punished because he steadfastly denies being involved in or having knowledge of the academic irregularities. For me, there are two basic problems with your position.

First, the question of whether UNC should be required to vacate wins and titles that it accumulated during the years when players were enrolled in the bogus courses, and whether Roy ought to pay back the bonuses he collected for the academic "achievements" of those players -- which we now know were not legitimately earned -- has nothing to do with blame. It's about doing what is fair and right and just. UNC procured those wins and titles by breaking the rules. Whether Roy and the players are at fault for the rule-breaking is completely immaterial, because they won those games by not competing fairly. Whether the coaches knew about the eligibility issues or not, when they played athletes who in fact would not have been academically eligible if the proper standards and rules had been applied, they deprived UNC's opponents of the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Consequently, in my opinion, those wins are the equivalent of stolen property. In the eyes of the law, as well as every moral code with which I am familiar, a person is not entitled to retain stolen property, even if that property was stolen by someone else without the person's knowledge or complicity.

Second, even if you truly believe that Roy was not aware of the academic improprieties, I don't agree that he is thereby rendered blameless. In fact, I would say that it is perhaps a more stinging indictment of Roy if he wasn't aware, because I believe that it is ultimately his responsibility, as the head of the program, to see that his players comply with the rules and requirements prescribed for the student-athletes in his charge. He recruited these players, so I believe that he had to be aware that many if not most of them had shaky academic records in high school. And I absolutely believe that when he recruited each of these players, he looked their parents in the eyes and assured them that he and his staff would look after their sons and make sure they would have an opportunity to earn a college degree. Yet now we are asked to believe that once those recruits were on campus, Roy had no responsibility to be concerned about or pay attention to their academic progress or their activities off the court. If Roy never noticed that his players were somehow being magically transformed from academically at-risk high schoolers to Dean's List scholars, and never even suspected that some rules and requirements were being bent in the process, then he was either deliberately looking the other way or was being hilariously obtuse. We obviously disagree about his blameworthiness, but in the final analysis, I find it difficult to comprehend how you can absolve him of all responsibility.

There seems to be the issue of what Roy "knew" that hangs in the air and fogs up the conversation.

I think Roy knew about the classes. Everybody seems to have known about the classes. I think he thought they were "easy" classes. I think every coach, everywhere, knows the "easy" classes to get a struggling player into to help maintain eligibility.

I think he also knew that there were professors and academic Dean's responsible to maintain the integrity of those classes and he didn't question their authority.

Hundreds of Professors and administrators had to know about those classes over the years. People with high stakes in the academic community who's job it was to know how things are supposed to work didn't question those classes. Why? I'd say it was because they didn't know.

He's the basketball coach, and not responsible for course integrity, and shouldn't be. The standard you place on what Roy Williams was expected to know about those classes is set too high, IMO.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Here's a couple of quotes I found from this article (https://unverifiedthefilm.net/2016/08/05/a-counter-qa-on-the-unc-scandal/) that addresses your very question...

"If Crowder had devised the paper-class”scheme” specifically for athletes, we’d likely see significantly more athletes than non-athletes in those first few classes. Instead, we see the opposite: the first four paper classes had only 11 athletes enrolled (two men’s basketball players, four football players, and five women’s basketball players), compared to 46 non-athletes.
Overall, there were more paper classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled (20) than there were paper classes with exclusively athletes enrolled (18). Again, if Crowder had devised the classes specifically to benefit athletes, we likely wouldn’t see so many classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled."

So, did the non-athletes make the dean's list like McCants the year unc won the championship? How did Rashad manage to make the dean's list? Did the administration change grades for non-athletes in order to keep them off academic probation as they did to keep athletes eligible to play sports?

[budwom]

I recall some quotes from Sean May regarding his last year at unc in which he mentioned that he really didn't have classes, "just
have to write a few papers." Or someone had to write a few papers. Or maybe not even that.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat,

Serious question: What about FB, WSoc, WBB and BB? What are your thoughts/feelings on those?

I think they all took advantage of those substandard classes. And from what I read, some of the individuals involved in those sports did commit NCAA violations and there should be punishment for them.

Let me be clear.

I'm with you guys that UNC should be punished, and as an institution, pretty strongly, for allowing those courses to exist.

I just don't think the basketball program or coaches were to blame, but I won't argue they didn't benefit.

If the NCAA wants to bring down the hammer on the whole school for this mess and to make the point that lax academics helped athletics and it won't be tolerated in the future, so be it. UNC was wrong here.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

So, did the non-athletes make the dean's list like McCants the year unc won the championship? How did Rashad manage to make the dean's list? Did the administration change grades for non-athletes in order to keep them off academic probation as they did to keep athletes eligible to play sports?

Sorry, but I don't know the answers to those questions.

[dukebluesincebirth]

Sorry, but I don't know the answers to those questions.

Just like your ol Roy boy... You don't want to know the answers, and that's part of the problem.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Just like your ol Roy boy... You don't want to know the answers, and that's part of the problem.

Thanks so much for your acceptance of my honest reply.

[PackMan97]

Here's a couple of quotes I found from this article (https://unverifiedthefilm.net/2016/08/05/a-counter-qa-on-the-unc-scandal/) that addresses your very question...

"If Crowder had devised the paper-class”scheme” specifically for athletes, we’d likely see significantly more athletes than non-athletes in those first few classes. Instead, we see the opposite: the first four paper classes had only 11 athletes enrolled (two men’s basketball players, four football players, and five women’s basketball players), compared to 46 non-athletes.
Overall, there were more paper classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled (20) than there were paper classes with exclusively athletes enrolled (18). Again, if Crowder had devised the classes specifically to benefit athletes, we likely wouldn’t see so many classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled."

I know you just didn't link to a Bradley Bethel post? LOL!

Let me link to you a slightly less biased source. How about UNC's own Wainstein Report (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT-EXHIBITS.pdf)?

The charts from UNC start on page 90 of the PDF.

As to Bradley's methodology, he is cherry picking the first four "Crowder Paper Classes" which start in 1999, but even then he flubs the numbers. also, why use the first four listed? Which stops in the middle of a semester. Oh yes because the fith course listed had 21 athletes enrolled. LOL!

If we go back to the start of the data though the summer of 1994 the athletic enrollements total 29 men's basketball players , 2 women's basketball players, no olympic sport enrollements and 10 football players.

Some of these "normal" students in this list are certainly legit as they are the independent study variety. In addition, we know that the bad actors in this scandal pushed normal students into these courses in order to provide cover for additional athletic enrollements, so I'm not particulalry concerned about how many non-athletes were enrolled. Even then, athletes make up less than 2% of the student enrollement at UNC.

[Li_Duke]

Here's a couple of quotes I found from this article (https://unverifiedthefilm.net/2016/08/05/a-counter-qa-on-the-unc-scandal/) that addresses your very question...

"If Crowder had devised the paper-class”scheme” specifically for athletes, we’d likely see significantly more athletes than non-athletes in those first few classes. Instead, we see the opposite: the first four paper classes had only 11 athletes enrolled (two men’s basketball players, four football players, and five women’s basketball players), compared to 46 non-athletes.
Overall, there were more paper classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled (20) than there were paper classes with exclusively athletes enrolled (18). Again, if Crowder had devised the classes specifically to benefit athletes, we likely wouldn’t see so many classes with exclusively non-athletes enrolled."

Wheat, if I did a statistical test for independence here, the p-value would be insanely small for rejecting the null hypothesis that enrollment did not favor athletes over non-athletes.

Let me give you a parallel example. The IRS is discovered to have secretly instituted a keep-your-tax-money program for select individuals. The first four years, only 11 billionaires benefited, compared to 46 non-billionaires. Overall, there were more years with exclusively non-billionaires enrolled (20) then there were years with exclusively billionaires enrolled (18). If the IRS had devised the program specifically to benefit billionaires, we likely wouldn't see so many years with exclusively non-billionaires enrolled.

See anything wrong with the argument?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I know you just didn't link to a Bradley Bethel post? LOL!

Let me link to you a slightly less biased source. How about UNC's own Wainstein Report (http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT-EXHIBITS.pdf)?

The charts from UNC start on page 90 of the PDF.

As to Bradley's methodology, he is cherry picking the first four "Crowder Paper Classes" which start in 1999, but even then he flubs the numbers. also, why use the first four listed? Which stops in the middle of a semester. Oh yes because the fith course listed had 21 athletes enrolled. LOL!

If we go back to the start of the data though the summer of 1994 the athletic enrollements total 29 men's basketball players , 2 women's basketball players, no olympic sport enrollements and 10 football players.

Some of these "normal" students in this list are certainly legit as they are the independent study variety. In addition, we know that the bad actors in this scandal pushed normal students into these courses in order to provide cover for additional athletic enrollements, so I'm not particulalry concerned about how many non-athletes were enrolled. Even then, athletes make up less than 2% of the student enrollement at UNC.

Who are these "bad actors" you speak of? And how do you know, or what evidence do you have, that "normal" students were "pushed" into the courses to provide "cover"?

I'm interested in seeing something besides your conspiracy therory.

I just posted a link to here that I read over the weekend that addressed your question. I'll leave it up to readers to decide if the writer is credible and what's relevant.

I'm not a cyber sleuth all consumed with this like you are, so forgive me if I didn't dissect stats buried in the Weinstein report.

And of course you are not concerned with how many non athletes were enrolled, it wouldn't fit nicely into the conclusions you have already made.

[elvis14]

We can go around in circles but here is what I see:



There is no doubt that the fake (not substandard, FAKE) classes were used to keep athletes eligible and this includes lots of MBB players, especially under Roy. The email trail clearly shows the purpose of the fake classes.
Just to be clear, there is no need for the NCAA to have to judge the classes as substandard or not. They don't need to make an academic judgement here because the classes were being run by a secretary. That's a FAKE class, not a substandard class 'taught' by a bad professor...it was a secretary, not an academic. No subjective analysis of the 'class' quality is necessary when the grades are handed out by a secretary. Did I mention that she was a secretary, not a professor of ANY kind?
Either Roy knew, in which case he should have to return the $$ he was paid for his players meeting academic standards and he should be fired OR he didn't know, in which case, he should be fired for not being involved with these STUDENT athletes. I guess we can just ignore the daily academic reports he gets if we are going with the "he didn't know" boondoggle.
It doesn't even matter that any coach knew. The email trail clearly shows that the intent of the fake classes were to keep athletes eligible and I don't care if non-athletes were enrolled to fake legitimacy. If a player for any sport would not have met eligibility requirements without these fake classes then they were ineligible to play and any game they participated in shouldn't count and any victories should be vacated. McCants says "hello" here.
When it comes to punishment going forward (the vacated victories will cover going backwards), all we have to do is look at what happened to other schools that had the "lack of institutional control". Punishment should be in line with what was given to other schools and the length and severity of the punishment should be multiplied properly by the number of years (decades) this institutional system of keeping athletes eligible while robbing them of a proper education was perpetrated.

[PackMan97]

Who are these "bad actors" you speak of? And how do you know, or what evidence do you have, that "normal" students were "pushed" into the courses to provide "cover"?

I'm interested in seeing something besides your conspiracy therory.

I just posted a link to here that I read over the weekend that addressed your question. I'll leave it up to readers to decide if the writer is credible and what's relevant.

I'm not a cyber sleuth all consumed with this like you are, so forgive me if I didn't dissect stats buried in the Weinstein report.

And of course you are not concerned with how many non athletes were enrolled, it wouldn't fit nicely into the conclusions you have already made.

Wheat, the reason Carolina was cheating can be directly lead to your attitude and other Carolina fans that share your mindset. There is literally nothing that can be said that will change your mind.

I would type more, but at this point there is nothing productive or within the posting guidelines on DBR that I want to say. I would just want to flame a troll and to that I say, "No thank you, this troll is not worth the time".

[devildeac]

I think they all took advantage of those substandard classes. And from what I read, some of the individuals involved in those sports did commit NCAA violations and there should be punishment for them.

Let me be clear.

I'm with you guys that UNC should be punished, and as an institution, pretty strongly, for allowing those courses to exist.

I just don't think the basketball program or coaches were to blame, but I won't argue they didn't benefit.

If the NCAA wants to bring down the hammer on the whole school for this mess and to make the point that lax academics helped athletics and it won't be tolerated in the future, so be it. UNC was wrong here.

Thanks!

Now, could you please convey that to the unc administration/coaches and the ncaa?

;)

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Wheat, the reason Carolina was cheating can be directly lead to your attitude and other Carolina fans that share your mindset. There is literally nothing that can be said that will change your mind.

I would type more, but at this point there is nothing productive or within the posting guidelines on DBR that I want to say. I would just want to flame a troll and to that I say, "No thank you, this troll is not worth the time".

So when I ask you to show me some evidence of your conspiracy theory you play the troll card. That's typical, and lame.

I'm not so sure what you think needs to be changed about my opinion at the moment that would make you happy.

I pretty much agree with people here who want harsh punishment for UNC and the individuals responsible for those classes.

I just want to see some evidence on exactly who is responsible before I single out somebody as a "cheat".

[Stray Gator]

There seems to be the issue of what Roy "knew" that hangs in the air and fogs up the conversation.

I think Roy knew about the classes. Everybody seems to have known about the classes. I think he thought they were "easy" classes. I think every coach, everywhere, knows the "easy" classes to get a struggling player into to help maintain eligibility.

I think he also knew that there were professors and academic Dean's responsible to maintain the integrity of those classes and he didn't question their authority.

Hundreds of Professors and administrators had to know about those classes over the years. People with high stakes in the academic community who's job it was to know how things are supposed to work didn't question those classes. Why? I'd say it was because they didn't know.

He's the basketball coach, and not responsible for course integrity, and shouldn't be. The standard you place on what Roy Williams was expected to know about those classes is set too high, IMO.

I agree that Roy is not responsible for "course integrity." But I submit that he certainly is, or should be, responsible for the integrity of his basketball program.

With apologies for repeating myself, there is no doubt that Roy and his basketball program benefited unfairly as a result of the fact that some of the players who competed for UNC should have been ineligible, because -- for example -- they were being given passing grades by a secretary for courses that either lacked any legitimate academic content or that did not require the athletes in the class to perform any meaningful academic work. Regardless of whether or not Roy was aware of those "irregularities," the players should not properly have been eligible to compete; and therefore all of the wins and titles and bonuses he acquired through the use of those players were tainted.

Given those undisputed facts, we return once again to the simple point that I've been trying to make: Since Roy and his basketball program have been the recipients of wins and titles and bonuses that were acquired through improper means, do you believe it's appropriate for them to retain those rewards? In short, do you believe that Roy and the players deserve to continue claiming as rightfully theirs all of the wins and titles and bonuses that we now know they did not earn in fair competition?

This is not a difficult issue that requires legal arguments or sophisticated reasoning to resolve. It's a simple and straightforward question of fundamental moral integrity that demands nothing more than the application of common sense.

Since we've reached a point at which we're just defending different perspectives through largely repetitive posts, I want to add that I respect and appreciate your willingness to engage on this controversy here. While there are some matters on which we will never reach agreement, I believe this exchange has enabled us to advance our understanding of one another's position. Most of all, I'm grateful that you, and those here who challenge you, have exercised considerable restraint in debating a subject that easily could -- and usually does -- devolve into a form of trench warfare characterized by fiery volleys and culminating in fractured friendships. (Maybe it helps that you did not attend UNC, but adopted the program as a pure basketball fan because you admired their style of play.) I hope that others share my view that your participation here as a rival fan adds value to our online community and is worthy of respect -- even if we sometimes wonder whether you convey a bit more of the Chapel Hill spin than you really believe. :rolleyes:

[PackMan97]

So when I ask you to show me some evidence of your conspiracy theory you play the troll card. That's typical, and lame.

I'm not so sure what you think needs to be changed about my opinion at the moment that would make you happy.

I pretty much agree with people here who want harsh punishment for UNC and the individuals responsible for those classes.

I just want to see some evidence on exactly who is responsible before I single out somebody as a "cheat".

Wheat, I've been over this plenty of times with you before in these threads. i know you read them. I know you've seen the emails. You are trolling and you know it. Whatever. Here are some of the emails.

UNC has had complete and total instutional control over this. Do you think having the cover of "normal" students and courses was just thought up by some secretary? LOL!

http://i58.tinypic.com/1417go6.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e183/kyleb491516/Untitled3_zps09550bb1.png (http://s39.photobucket.com/user/kyleb491516/media/Untitled3_zps09550bb1.png.html)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-jKmfU0AAVU4R.png:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-wKLTUoAABdXs.png

You want evidence, but the problem is most of those at Carolina are guilty by association, guilty by sticking their head in the sand and guilty because they stayed silent or stayed ignorant. "Just following orders" and "Just doing my job" doesn't work as a defense.

[ricks68]

Wheat, I've been over this plenty of times with you before in these threads. i know you read them. I know you've seen the emails. You are trolling and you know it. Whatever. Here are some of the emails.

UNC has had complete and total instutional control over this. Do you think having the cover of "normal" students and courses was just thought up by some secretary? LOL!

http://i58.tinypic.com/1417go6.jpg

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e183/kyleb491516/Untitled3_zps09550bb1.png (http://s39.photobucket.com/user/kyleb491516/media/Untitled3_zps09550bb1.png.html)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-jKmfU0AAVU4R.png:large

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CX-wKLTUoAABdXs.png

You want evidence, but the problem is most of those at Carolina are guilty by association, guilty by sticking their head in the sand and guilty because they stayed silent or stayed ignorant. "Just following orders" and "Just doing my job" doesn't work as a defense.

I sooooooooo wish I could spork PackMan97 again and again and again......, but I still can't even do it once.

Give our trusted poster some love here. Juat another of PackMan97's fantastic posts.

ricks

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I agree that Roy is not responsible for "course integrity." But I submit that he certainly is, or should be, responsible for the integrity of his basketball program.

With apologies for repeating myself, there is no doubt that Roy and his basketball program benefited unfairly as a result of the fact that some of the players who competed for UNC should have been ineligible, because -- for example -- they were being given passing grades by a secretary for courses that either lacked any legitimate academic content or that did not require the athletes in the class to perform any meaningful academic work. Regardless of whether or not Roy was aware of those "irregularities," the players should not properly have been eligible to compete; and therefore all of the wins and titles and bonuses he acquired through the use of those players were tainted.

Given those undisputed facts, we return once again to the simple point that I've been trying to make: Since Roy and his basketball program have been the recipients of wins and titles and bonuses that were acquired through improper means, do you believe it's appropriate for them to retain those rewards? In short, do you believe that Roy and the players deserve to continue claiming as rightfully theirs all of the wins and titles and bonuses that we now know they did not earn in fair competition?

This is not a difficult issue that requires legal arguments or sophisticated reasoning to resolve. It's a simple and straightforward question of fundamental moral integrity that demands nothing more than the application of common sense.

Since we've reached a point at which we're just defending different perspectives through largely repetitive posts, I want to add that I respect and appreciate your willingness to engage on this controversy here. While there are some matters on which we will never reach agreement, I believe this exchange has enabled us to advance our understanding of one another's position. Most of all, I'm grateful that you, and those here who challenge you, have exercised considerable restraint in debating a subject that easily could -- and usually does -- devolve into a form of trench warfare characterized by fiery volleys and culminating in fractured friendships. (Maybe it helps that you did not attend UNC, but adopted the program as a pure basketball fan because you admired their style of play.) I hope that others share my view that your participation here as a rival fan adds value to our online community and is worthy of respect -- even if we sometimes wonder whether you convey a bit more of the Chapel Hill spin than you really believe. :rolleyes:

Thanks Stray for the support. It's not always easy and enjoyable being the red headed step child around here.

To answer your bolded question above...

I would be fine with an NCAA decision to vacate wins that are proven to have been accomplished by players only kept eligible by those substandard courses. The Academic staff let down the university as a whole and that doesn't seem unreasonable to me as a form of punishment to make a point. I don't put that on the basketball program, its not like they were sending coaches out with envelopes of cash in a envelope to lure a player for a competitive edge. I put it all on the school and the academics side for failure to do their job. The team did seemingly benefit from it all, however, and no-one should be surprised if they are forced to vacate some wins from ineligible players.

The bonuses Roy received are a different animal. There's no way to put that ketchup back in the bottle and, assuming if you believe like I do, that Roy had no knowledge that the courses were so substandard as to cross the line...UNC will have to eat those payments. And he certainly doesn't have any responsibility to give money back after they let him, and everybody else, down like that with those classes.

I don't like the politics side of college basketball. The "moral integrity" of the whole NCAA system is in question as far as I'm concerned.

And you hit the nail on the head...I'm a lifelong fan of UNC basketball because of their style of play, and the personalities of the players and coaches I've watched over the years. I have no connection with the University.

[BLPOG]

There was some plagiarism, eviidently, but not by most students. And that should be punished just as it is in other schools.

I think it's unrealistic to think the students should be expected to know what they are told to do for a class was not "ligitimate" by the supposedly responsible adults.

There's never going to be any bridging the gap between people who are informed on the scandal and UNC fans in denial.

The phrase "some plagiarism, evidently" connotes a skepticism toward the idea. Why be skeptical? The plagiarism issue came up many times throughout the email records. Students-athletes were not punished for it. That was a clear violation of university policy and ethical behavior and it was facilitated by professors, administrators, and the athletic department.

The problem in determining just how bad the plagiarism problem was is that it's difficult to obtain the data years later. The Cadwalader report did contain a review of about 150 papers that they recovered. They brought in professors from other universities and did a blind review, along with using some plagiarism detection software.

Excerpt from results:

"In over 40% of the 150 papers (61 papers), 25% or more of the text was deemed unoriginal. "

It was not "some plagiarism."

UNC apologists downplay or deny every aspect of this scandal, even when the evidence is there, plain as day. There's no point in arguing about it. The only reason to discuss it is to inform other sports fans who might not be fully aware of the depth of the Cheaters' dishonor.

[moonpie23]

I think he also knew that there were professors and academic Dean's responsible to maintain the integrity of those classes and he didn't question their authority.

Hundreds of Professors and administrators had to know about those classes over the years. People with high stakes in the academic community who's job it was to know how things are supposed to work didn't question those classes. Why? I'd say it was because they didn't know.

He's the basketball coach, and not responsible for course integrity, and shouldn't be. The standard you place on what Roy Williams was expected to know about those classes is set too high, IMO.

well, it's HIS program that is going to be (or SHOULD be) hammered whale-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.e, so you saying "don't ask, don't tell"..??????

[devildeac]

I agree that Roy is not responsible for "course integrity." But I submit that he certainly is, or should be, responsible for the integrity of his basketball program.

With apologies for repeating myself, there is no doubt that Roy and his basketball program benefited unfairly as a result of the fact that some of the players who competed for UNC should have been ineligible, because -- for example -- they were being given passing grades by a secretary for courses that either lacked any legitimate academic content or that did not require the athletes in the class to perform any meaningful academic work. Regardless of whether or not Roy was aware of those "irregularities," the players should not properly have been eligible to compete; and therefore all of the wins and titles and bonuses he acquired through the use of those players were tainted.

Given those undisputed facts, we return once again to the simple point that I've been trying to make: Since Roy and his basketball program have been the recipients of wins and titles and bonuses that were acquired through improper means, do you believe it's appropriate for them to retain those rewards? In short, do you believe that Roy and the players deserve to continue claiming as rightfully theirs all of the wins and titles and bonuses that we now know they did not earn in fair competition?

This is not a difficult issue that requires legal arguments or sophisticated reasoning to resolve. It's a simple and straightforward question of fundamental moral integrity that demands nothing more than the application of common sense.
Since we've reached a point at which we're just defending different perspectives through largely repetitive posts, I want to add that I respect and appreciate your willingness to engage on this controversy here. While there are some matters on which we will never reach agreement, I believe this exchange has enabled us to advance our understanding of one another's position. Most of all, I'm grateful that you, and those here who challenge you, have exercised considerable restraint in debating a subject that easily could -- and usually does -- devolve into a form of trench warfare characterized by fiery volleys and culminating in fractured friendships. (Maybe it helps that you did not attend UNC, but adopted the program as a pure basketball fan because you admired their style of play.) I hope that others share my view that your participation here as a rival fan adds value to our online community and is worthy of respect -- even if we sometimes wonder whether you convey a bit more of the Chapel Hill spin than you really believe. :rolleyes:

While I agree wholeheartedly with you, Stray, you must remember who/what we're dealing with here: (:rolleyes:) uncheat and the ncaa (clarification so as not to offend "wheat," who I agree with you has been quite the trooper to engage the enemy, supremely out-numbered, and perform in an admirable and respectable manner).

[devildeac]

I sooooooooo wish I could spork PackMan97 again and again and again..., but I still can't even do it once.

Give our trusted poster some love here. Juat another of PackMan97's fantastic posts.

ricks

I've sporked PackMan on numerous occasions, too. Not with quite the promiscuity with which I engage OPK, but enough to make Mrs. dd even more suspicious :o .

[dukelifer]

There's never going to be any bridging the gap between people who are informed on the scandal and UNC fans in denial.

The phrase "some plagiarism, evidently" connotes a skepticism toward the idea. Why be skeptical? The plagiarism issue came up many times throughout the email records. Students-athletes were not punished for it. That was a clear violation of university policy and ethical behavior and it was facilitated by professors, administrators, and the athletic department.

The problem in determining just how bad the plagiarism problem was is that it's difficult to obtain the data years later. The Cadwalader report did contain a review of about 150 papers that they recovered. They brought in professors from other universities and did a blind review, along with using some plagiarism detection software.

Excerpt from results:

"In over 40% of the 150 papers (61 papers), 25% or more of the text was deemed unoriginal. "

It was not "some plagiarism."

UNC apologists downplay or deny every aspect of this scandal, even when the evidence is there, plain as day. There's no point in arguing about it. The only reason to discuss it is to inform other sports fans who might not be fully aware of the depth of the Cheaters' dishonor.

Every University has known courses that students can take and get good grades. These courses can be used to boost the GPA of any student- not just athletes who need to stay eligible. The "courses" at UNC were unusual and bogus. Those in charge should have seen this - not right away - but after several years of looking at trends. The courses that student athletes take are monitored closely and it was clear that they were clustering to a few known easy-A courses. It is possible that nobody bothered to mention this to a Dean or Provost. This is somewhat hard to believe but possible. It is possible that Athletics knew these courses were bogus but did not care. But this is a lack of institutional control of their academic program and it did affect athletic eligibility. It is not obvious to me what the NCAA should do about this mess. To me, it reveals many problems with the NCAA rules about eligibility. We know that there are many athletes around the country who are not ready for college and some with severe learning issue. There are also many who are extraordinary and excel even the most demanding classes. The NCAA cannot dictate grading rules for Universities. In theory, any professor can give a student an A simply for sending him or her an email stating one thing they learned in the class. There are no rules. If they wanted, the NCAA could create standardized tests that students must pass every year to maintain eligibility. That at least would force students to take a more rigorous curriculum. But UNCs problem was one of accreditation as an institution of higher learning and oversight. I just do not know how the NCAA should act here-it is not obvious to me- but of course it is their game and can make their own rules.

[Stray Gator]

Every University has known courses that students can take and get good grades. These courses can be used to boost the GPA of any student- not just athletes who need to stay eligible. The "courses" at UNC were unusual and bogus. Those in charge should have seen this - not right away - but after several years of looking at trends. The courses that student athletes take are monitored closely and it was clear that they were clustering to a few known easy-A courses. It is possible that nobody bothered to mention this to a Dean or Provost. This is somewhat hard to believe but possible. It is possible that Athletics knew these courses were bogus but did not care. But this is a lack of institutional control of their academic program and it did affect athletic eligibility. It is not obvious to me what the NCAA should do about this mess. To me, it reveals many problems with the NCAA rules about eligibility. We know that there are many athletes around the country who are not ready for college and some with severe learning issue. There are also many who are extraordinary and excel even the most demanding classes. The NCAA cannot dictate grading rules for Universities. In theory, any professor can give a student an A simply for sending him or her an email stating one thing they learned in the class. There are no rules. If they wanted, the NCAA could create standardized tests that students must pass every year to maintain eligibility. That at least would force students to take a more rigorous curriculum. But UNCs problem was one of accreditation as an institution of higher learning and oversight. I just do not know how the NCAA should act here-it is not obvious to me- but of course it is their game and can make their own rules.

It might be illuminating to quote here what the NCAA has promulgated as its "Core Values" and add emphasis to the first four, which appear pertinent to the UNC situation:

NCAA Core Values

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

The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.

The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.

The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.

The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.

An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.

Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.

Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.

While these general guiding principles are broadly worded and thus subject to some degree of interpretation, it strikes me that a commitment to promote "[t]he highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship" cannot by any stretch of language or logic be reconciled with the past conduct of UNC in allowing athletes to play who should not have been academically eligible, or with the defiant positions that UNC officials and attorneys and supporters are presently asserting in response to the allegations of wrongdoing. If the NCAA permits a member school to use players who should be academically ineligible with impunity, then the underlying foundation of intercollegiate athletics, based on the already-strained concept of the student-athlete, no longer has even a semblance of substance and authenticity. And if the NCAA permits programs, including their individual coaches and players, to proclaim that they are rightfully entitled to retain the benefit of wins and titles and pecuniary rewards that were procured by using improper and unfair competitive advantages, then any notions of integrity and sportsmanship in college athletics are nothing more than meaningless vestiges of the past. Finally, if the NCAA permits UNC to evade responsibility and escape any real consequences for the systemic corruption of its normal academic standards over a period of at least two decades for the purpose of fabricating a record of fraudulent athletic achievements -- thereby not only cheating opponents by denying them a fair opportunity to compete, but cheating its own student-athletes by depriving them of a legitimate college education -- then the only reasonable conclusion is that the NCAA and its "Core Values" are, in fact, worthy of nothing more than the contempt and disrespect that UNC's response reflects.

[madscavenger]

Over and over ad finitem it seems, with respect to eligibility, terms along the lines of 'statistics' and 'some' have been cited to prove or disprove whether violations have occurred. Isn't it such that any game in which even only one ineligible player participated is sufficient cause to invalidate a victory? Should that be the case, evidence related to the almost uncountable instances of violations of all sorts needn't all be pursued. McCants himself ought to satisfy justification of severe penalty. So many more provable violations over the two decades are cut and dried, the harder to substantiate instances and those requiring dot connection may just be overkill and not necessary to pursue to prove their case. Guilt was determinable a long time ago. The NCAA has been overly reticent in pursuing accusation. Much of the Carolina delay needn't have been tolerated. The whole thing smacks of Emmert, Swofford, ESPN, big money collaboration. Sorry, Wheat. UNC has been Ramrodding its arrogance and unethical practices for a very long time. Not all students and professors deserve the taint. The University owes them and everyone else bigtime. Its a universal truth that when an all-time worst scandal breaks open, EVERYONE pays the price. There's no avoiding a flood so deep and wide. If those at UNC that are innocent can't see after all this time, they are deficient in their ability to independently evaluate. Maybe that's the biggest tragedy of all.

[Pghdukie]

The FOX (AFAM) got into the henhouse (UNC ATHLETICS) and caused havoc. The Farmer (UNC HIGHER ARCHY) let the fox in. Now the Farmer must pay the price for "Lack of Institutional Control".

[oldnavy]

To play the analogy game, Lawyers represent companies that do things wrong all the time...doesn't make the lawyers the bad guys. And when the company gets sued for those wrong things, do they give back the billable hours dollars for representing that company?

It's about blame, and I don't see Roy or the players as ones to blame here.
It doesn't matter to you and not a big point for you because you are not Roy Williams...who steadfastly denies having any knowledge of classes that were substandard and there's been no evidence he did know presented.

Assuming that's true, it's not fair to blame him.

Roy values his reputation, and I've never seen anything to make me think his reputation as a great coach who plays by the rules should be challenged in all this.

The lack of integrity in those classes was terrible and can't be tolerated. We all agree on that. UNC should be punished, seriously.

Blame is another thing...where does that lie? I certainly don't think it lies with Roy.

If the NCAA wants to punish UNC hard, I'm OK with it because the institution deserves it after allowing those courses to become routine.

If somebody with that power thinks the best way to make the punishment clear for UNC's lack of academic control is to strip UNC basketball titles, I wouldn't think that very fair to the players or coaches, but in the bigger picture, if that's what they want to do to get the point across to University leaders that courses like that won't be tolerated, OK by me.

Roy's own words are clear evidence that he knew, why else would he want the African American players on his team to stop "congregating" in the AFAM program?

Roy shot himself in the foot when he tried to gain credit for stopping the cheating that he claims he knew nothing about...

Please explain Roy's position on the AFAM classes if he didn't know that they were crooked and would or could come back to bite him in the hind end?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Wheat gets hammered on here frequently - sometimes deserved, sometimes less so - but I do give him a degree of respect for acknowledging the wrong-doings of UNC and recognizing the complications of how to punish them.

Stripping old banners and titles is a hollow gesture, obviously. It doesn't remove championship caps from the heads of fans or put the nets back up.

Postseason bans only punish the current athletes (the only ones in twenty years presumed to be innocent).

Removing scholarships hurts potential future student athletes, though obviously leaving them with other alternatives.

None of these solutions really feels right. I am fairly convinced the only way to satisfy fans here would be a Game of Thrones walk of shame for ol Roy - but at the end of the day, that didn't really work out so well either...

Anyway, like most here, I have been appalled at the depth and breadth of the scandal, and for a moment hoped for some sort of nuclear option from the NCAA. The more time has elapsed, I fear the NCAA's eventually ruling and "penalties" will be much more driven by their own desire to maintain relevance and a semblence of authority than anything else.

But wow, I digress...

Wheat - you recognize the complications in penalizing UNC; what do you think would be appropriate?

[lotusland]

Wheat gets hammered on here frequently - sometimes deserved, sometimes less so - but I do give him a degree of respect for acknowledging the wrong-doings of UNC and recognizing the complications of how to punish them.

Stripping old banners and titles is a hollow gesture, obviously. It doesn't remove championship caps from the heads of fans or put the nets back up.

Postseason bans only punish the current athletes (the only ones in twenty years presumed to be innocent).

Removing scholarships hurts potential future student athletes, though obviously leaving them with other alternatives.

None of these solutions really feels right. I am fairly convinced the only way to satisfy fans here would be a Game of Thrones walk of shame for ol Roy - but at the end of the day, that didn't really work out so well either...

Anyway, like most here, I have been appalled at the depth and breadth of the scandal, and for a moment hoped for some sort of nuclear option from the NCAA. The more time has elapsed, I fear the NCAA's eventually ruling and "penalties" will be much more driven by their own desire to maintain relevance and a semblence of authority than anything else.

But wow, I digress...


Wheat - you recognize the complications in penalizing UNC; what do you think would be appropriate?

Um the banners are why the cheating occurred so how would removing those be hollow? It's not going to happen but there is no more appropriate punishment.

[moonpie23]

Stripping old banners and titles is a hollow gesture, obviously. It doesn't remove championship caps from the heads of fans or put the nets back up.

Postseason bans only punish the current athletes (the only ones in twenty years presumed to be innocent).

Removing scholarships hurts potential future student athletes, though obviously leaving them with other alternatives.

None of these solutions really feels right.

yes, they do......

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

yes, they do...

Well, I mean none of them alone feels ample.

I would like to see banners come down, but what does it really do? Would we be sated if they pulled banners and victories? Revisionist history seems hollow to me, having watched the Bad Blue cut down nets over the years.

[moonpie23]

listen.....this ENTIRE cluster-f is about KEEPING THOSE BANNERS!! at any cost......since 1957, those banners have been the badge of glory that the baby-blue have staked everything on.

look at what they've done/spent to keep them. THERE IS NOTHING more dear, or REVERED TO UNC AW's than those banners!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...


not academics, pride, education, employees, reputation, present or future ANYTHING........those banners are the living, breathing SOUL of that institution........if you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention...

[ikiru36]

Roy's own words are clear evidence that he knew, why else would he want the African American players on his team to stop "congregating" in the AFAM program?

Roy shot himself in the foot when he tried to gain credit for stopping the cheating that he claims he knew nothing about...

Please explain Roy's position on the AFAM classes if he didn't know that they were crooked and would or could come back to bite him in the hind end?

My apologies for re-posting an earlier post of mine from another thread:

I understand your line of argument, but I just want to re-state some facts that belie Williams' contention that he sought to address this issue (while simulataneously claiming that there wasn't anything ever wrong in the first place).

"I think that there is altogether too much focus on trying to parse the meaning of reduced majoring in AFAM Studies (a line of inquiry offered as defense by Williams himself) during Williams' tenure. Instead, the focus should be squarely on the number of bogus courses being taken by Men's Basketball players, since that is the actual crime. As already noted elsewhere, while majoring in African American Studies probably is some indication of an increased likelihood of having taken such courses, it is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for having been enrolled in the sham paper classes at all.

In any event, elsewhere in the Wainstein report it is noted that "There were 54 basketball player enrollments in AFAM independent studies during Dean Smith's 36 years, 17 during Bill Guthridge's three years, 42 during Matt Doherty's three years, and 167 in Williams' 11 years."

Let's do the math:
Dean Smith - 1.5 per year (though if the scandal began in 1993, Dean was only involved for 4 years, bringing his average up to 13.5 per year. In fairness, more of the classes during Dean's full tenure were likely legitimate courses, but who knows?)
Bill Guthridge - 5.67 per year
Matt Doherty - 14 per year
Roy Williams - 15.18 per year (though if this practice was truly curtailed in 2009, Roy's average increases to 27.8 per year)

This math is very difficult to square whatsoever with a narrative that Roy sought a reduction in these courses being taken, over the course of his tenure.

These facts (if I've correctly reported and interpreted the data) point to an increase in these sham classes being taken under the Williams/Welden regime, at the same time there was a reduction in AFAM majors on the team. A cynic (or one otherwise interested in Occam's razor) might interpret this to mean that Roy sought to diminish majoring (which happens to be the one aspect of his players academic pursuits that is PUBLIC and could therefore draw scrutiny), while doing nothing to diminish (and perhaps increasing) the taking of easy/fake classes by his players?

Hmmmm, methinks he doth protest too much?"

Very glad to hear Wheat's, and other at least partial UNC apologists explanation/rationalization for this set of facts?

Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CameronBlue]

Well, I mean none of them alone feels ample.

I would like to see banners come down, but what does it really do? Would we be sated if they pulled banners and victories? Revisionist history seems hollow to me, having watched the Bad Blue cut down nets over the years.


UNC's response to the NCAA is an attempt to put the issue of academic malfeasance to bed once and for all, telling the NCAA, it's none of your damn business how we educate our student-athletes. They are trying to argue that they didn't break any rules (rules to which they at one time submitted), and the current rules, by their interpretation, don't apply. They don't want to be back in the same place 10 years from now defending themselves against more accusations from the NCAA. From that you can logically infer that academic reform, to the extent that it levels the athletic playing field, is of no interest to them. If so what are we left with as a deterrence to future cheating? Revisionist history: The loss and "shame" of being stripped of their titles and victories. UNC has mounted a multi-million dollar defense for the sole purpose, seemingly so, of protecting the banners and reputations of its coaches. True educational reform and a recognition of its gross negligence of student-athletes? Meh, not so much. It's your perspective that the damage has been done so the loss of banners are a hollow victory (I agree) but to them those banners mean everything.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

listen....this ENTIRE cluster-f is about KEEPING THOSE BANNERS!! at any cost...since 1957, those banners have been the badge of glory that the baby-blue have staked everything on.

look at what they've done/spent to keep them. THERE IS NOTHING more dear, or REVERED TO UNC AW's than those banners!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...


not academics, pride, education, employees, reputation, present or future ANYTHING....those banners are the living, breathing SOUL of that institution....if you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention...

So, from your persective, pulling the banners IS the walk of shame?

Shame, shame, shame.

[PackMan97]

There is one simple punishment that needs to be applied to UNC.

They need to take a few years off from college athletics and start over with new personell in the athletic department that have never worked at UNC (or KS).

/discussion

Anything less

[budwom]

The Committee on Infractions will have a choice between p*ssing off unc, or p*ssing off every other school they've penalized in the past.

[Stray Gator]

Wheat gets hammered on here frequently - sometimes deserved, sometimes less so - but I do give him a degree of respect for acknowledging the wrong-doings of UNC and recognizing the complications of how to punish them.

Stripping old banners and titles is a hollow gesture, obviously. It doesn't remove championship caps from the heads of fans or put the nets back up.

Postseason bans only punish the current athletes (the only ones in twenty years presumed to be innocent).

Removing scholarships hurts potential future student athletes, though obviously leaving them with other alternatives.

None of these solutions really feels right. . . .

In my opinion, the questions of how to appropriately "punish" UNC, and whether any of the three "solutions" you've mentioned "really feels right," are only complicated because those questions are framed in the way that UNC and its supporters want everyone to see them -- i.e., to convey the impression that any sanctions for past wrongdoing would be ineffective, and that any penalties imposed going forward would fall unfairly upon future student-athletes who are guilty of no wrongdoing and thus don't deserve to be punished. Allowing UNC's advocates to define the terms invites the use of subtle semantics that portray any proposed sanctions as either "hollow" or "unfair to innocent victims."

I believe the proper approach to this situation is to move beyond the narrow concepts of "penalties" or "solutions," and recognize that UNC's wrongdoing warrants remedies. When viewed as remedies, I believe the three options you mention feel entirely appropriate.

First, in my mind, when wins and titles are vacated because they were procured through improper means, including using players who should have been ineligible, that does not constitute a punishment -- it's simply a remedy to correct the record. The notion that the NCAA would be "punishing" UNC athletic programs by vacating titles and taking down banners is a thinly veiled ploy being used by UNC's propaganda machine to set up their defense that "the coaches and athletics department shouldn't be punished because they didn't create the bogus courses and weren't responsible for the academic fraud." As I've tried to explain in prior posts, however, the question of whether coaches or athletic department officials were involved in the bogus course scheme is immaterial. The only thing that matters is that UNC won those games and titles by using players who should not have been eligible to play.

I avoid using the word "cheated" because it implies that coaches and players themselves knowingly broke the rules, and that plays into the UNC party line that they should only be "punished" if there is proof of knowledge and malicious intent on the part of coaches and players -- as if this were a criminal trial. From the perspective of the opposing teams, they certainly were "cheated" out of a fair opportunity to compete. But to justify removal of their wins and titles should not require proof that there was deliberate cheating by UNC's teams. If the evidence shows that at least one player who participated in a game should have been academically ineligible to compete, then the forfeiture of that game (and any resulting title) is not a punishment -- it's a remedy that is entirely appropriate to correct the record. While some of the UNC faithful will of course continue to claim the titles and insist that their teams "won it on the court," the rest of the world will know the truth; and more importantly, the official record will show that UNC did not win those games and titles and banners, but obtained them by improper means -- like stolen property. To me, that remedy is just and fair -- not hollow or empty.

Second, regarding postseason bans, while it's true that the burden will fall partly upon the current and future players who are guilty of no wrongdoing, it will also fall -- justifiably so -- on the coaches and fans and the institution itself. But even as to the current and future players who will be denied an opportunity to compete in post-season tournaments (or bowl games for football), I believe the ban is fair and appropriate, because it is a remedy for the program's past wrongdoing that enabled the program's teams to participate in postseason tournaments (and bowl games) undeservedly. When student-athletes choose to become part of a program, they accept the benefits and burdens and consequences that accompany that choice. If the team fails to qualify for postseason competition because a key player is injured or disqualified, that's not the fault of the other players; but no one would suggest that the team should still be allowed to play in the tournament under those circumstances on the theory that the players who are not to blame shouldn't bear the burden. It's a consequence of having chosen to join the program and become a member of the team.

Finally, reducing (not "removing") scholarships for a period of time is a remedy that I believe is fair and appropriate based on the same reasoning that applies to postseason bans. If the evidence shows that a program enjoyed a competitive advantage by using players who should have been ineligible, it seems entirely fair to me that the program should compensate by being required to compete with fewer players for the same period going forward.

In sum, I think that if these measures are viewed as remedies for the rule violations that yielded undeserved rewards rather than as punishment for "cheating," the perception that none of them "really feels right" is less pronounced.

[martydoesntfoul]

In my opinion, the questions of how to appropriately "punish" UNC, and whether any of the three "solutions" you've mentioned "really feels right," are only complicated because those questions are framed in the way that UNC and its supporters want everyone to see them -- i.e., to convey the impression that any sanctions for past wrongdoing would be ineffective, and that any penalties imposed going forward would fall unfairly upon future student-athletes who are guilty of no wrongdoing and thus don't deserve to be punished. Allowing UNC's advocates to define the terms invites the use of subtle semantics that portray any proposed sanctions as either "hollow" or "unfair to innocent victims."

I believe the proper approach to this situation is to move beyond the narrow concepts of "penalties" or "solutions," and recognize that UNC's wrongdoing warrants remedies. When viewed as remedies, I believe the three options you mention feel entirely appropriate.

First, in my mind, when wins and titles are vacated because they were procured through improper means, including using players who should have been ineligible, that does not constitute a punishment -- it's simply a remedy to correct the record. The notion that the NCAA would be "punishing" UNC athletic programs by vacating titles and taking down banners is a thinly veiled ploy being used by UNC's propaganda machine to set up their defense that "the coaches and athletics department shouldn't be punished because they didn't create the bogus courses and weren't responsible for the academic fraud." As I've tried to explain in prior posts, however, the question of whether coaches or athletic department officials were involved in the bogus course scheme is immaterial. The only thing that matters is that UNC won those games and titles by using players who should not have been eligible to play.

I avoid using the word "cheated" because it implies that coaches and players themselves knowingly broke the rules, and that plays into the UNC party line that they should only be "punished" if there is proof of knowledge and malicious intent on the part of coaches and players -- as if this were a criminal trial. From the perspective of the opposing teams, they certainly were "cheated" out of a fair opportunity to compete. But to justify removal of their wins and titles should not require proof that there was deliberate cheating by UNC's teams. If the evidence shows that at least one player who participated in a game should have been academically ineligible to compete, then the forfeiture of that game (and any resulting title) is not a punishment -- it's a remedy that is entirely appropriate to correct the record. While some of the UNC faithful will of course continue to claim the titles and insist that their teams "won it on the court," the rest of the world will know the truth; and more importantly, the official record will show that UNC did not win those games and titles and banners, but obtained them by improper means -- like stolen property. To me, that remedy is just and fair -- not hollow or empty.

Second, regarding postseason bans, while it's true that the burden will fall partly upon the current and future players who are guilty of no wrongdoing, it will also fall -- justifiably so -- on the coaches and fans and the institution itself. But even as to the current and future players who will be denied an opportunity to compete in post-season tournaments (or bowl games for football), I believe the ban is fair and appropriate, because it is a remedy for the program's past wrongdoing that enabled the program's teams to participate in postseason tournaments (and bowl games) undeservedly. When student-athletes choose to become part of a program, they accept the benefits and burdens and consequences that accompany that choice. If the team fails to qualify for postseason competition because a key player is injured or disqualified, that's not the fault of the other players; but no one would suggest that the team should still be allowed to play in the tournament under those circumstances on the theory that the players who are not to blame shouldn't bear the burden. It's a consequence of having chosen to join the program and become a member of the team.

Finally, reducing (not "removing") scholarships for a period of time is a remedy that I believe is fair and appropriate based on the same reasoning that applies to postseason bans. If the evidence shows that a program enjoyed a competitive advantage by using players who should have been ineligible, it seems entirely fair to me that the program should compensate by being required to compete with fewer players for the same period going forward.

In sum, I think that if these measures are viewed as remedies for the rule violations that yielded undeserved rewards rather than as punishment for "cheating," the perception that none of them "really feels right" is less pronounced.

Brilliantly stated.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I guess the other question would be "if cheating for X years resulted in Y championships, what is deterrant Z to keep other schools from following the same path to success?"

To me, that would be the only argument for the death penalty; I don't see any other punishment/remedy/solution as being any deterrant whatsoever.

[devildeac]

In my opinion, the questions of how to appropriately "punish" UNC, and whether any of the three "solutions" you've mentioned "really feels right," are only complicated because those questions are framed in the way that UNC and its supporters want everyone to see them -- i.e., to convey the impression that any sanctions for past wrongdoing would be ineffective, and that any penalties imposed going forward would fall unfairly upon future student-athletes who are guilty of no wrongdoing and thus don't deserve to be punished. Allowing UNC's advocates to define the terms invites the use of subtle semantics that portray any proposed sanctions as either "hollow" or "unfair to innocent victims."

I believe the proper approach to this situation is to move beyond the narrow concepts of "penalties" or "solutions," and recognize that UNC's wrongdoing warrants remedies. When viewed as remedies, I believe the three options you mention feel entirely appropriate.

First, in my mind, when wins and titles are vacated because they were procured through improper means, including using players who should have been ineligible, that does not constitute a punishment -- it's simply a remedy to correct the record. The notion that the NCAA would be "punishing" UNC athletic programs by vacating titles and taking down banners is a thinly veiled ploy being used by UNC's propaganda machine to set up their defense that "the coaches and athletics department shouldn't be punished because they didn't create the bogus courses and weren't responsible for the academic fraud." As I've tried to explain in prior posts, however, the question of whether coaches or athletic department officials were involved in the bogus course scheme is immaterial. The only thing that matters is that UNC won those games and titles by using players who should not have been eligible to play.

I avoid using the word "cheated" because it implies that coaches and players themselves knowingly broke the rules, and that plays into the UNC party line that they should only be "punished" if there is proof of knowledge and malicious intent on the part of coaches and players -- as if this were a criminal trial. From the perspective of the opposing teams, they certainly were "cheated" out of a fair opportunity to compete. But to justify removal of their wins and titles should not require proof that there was deliberate cheating by UNC's teams. If the evidence shows that at least one player who participated in a game should have been academically ineligible to compete, then the forfeiture of that game (and any resulting title) is not a punishment -- it's a remedy that is entirely appropriate to correct the record. While some of the UNC faithful will of course continue to claim the titles and insist that their teams "won it on the court," the rest of the world will know the truth; and more importantly, the official record will show that UNC did not win those games and titles and banners, but obtained them by improper means -- like stolen property. To me, that remedy is just and fair -- not hollow or empty.

Second, regarding postseason bans, while it's true that the burden will fall partly upon the current and future players who are guilty of no wrongdoing, it will also fall -- justifiably so -- on the coaches and fans and the institution itself. But even as to the current and future players who will be denied an opportunity to compete in post-season tournaments (or bowl games for football), I believe the ban is fair and appropriate, because it is a remedy for the program's past wrongdoing that enabled the program's teams to participate in postseason tournaments (and bowl games) undeservedly. When student-athletes choose to become part of a program, they accept the benefits and burdens and consequences that accompany that choice. If the team fails to qualify for postseason competition because a key player is injured or disqualified, that's not the fault of the other players; but no one would suggest that the team should still be allowed to play in the tournament under those circumstances on the theory that the players who are not to blame shouldn't bear the burden. It's a consequence of having chosen to join the program and become a member of the team.

Finally, reducing (not "removing") scholarships for a period of time is a remedy that I believe is fair and appropriate based on the same reasoning that applies to postseason bans. If the evidence shows that a program enjoyed a competitive advantage by using players who should have been ineligible, it seems entirely fair to me that the program should compensate by being required to compete with fewer players for the same period going forward.

In sum, I think that if these measures are viewed as remedies for the rule violations that yielded undeserved rewards rather than as punishment for "cheating," the perception that none of them "really feels right" is less pronounced.

Well done, again, Stray.

Is it too late to have you included on the current COI for a 1-2 year term? ;)

[killerleft]

listen....this ENTIRE cluster-f is about KEEPING THOSE BANNERS!! at any cost...since 1957, those banners have been the badge of glory that the baby-blue have staked everything on.

look at what they've done/spent to keep them. THERE IS NOTHING more dear, or REVERED TO UNC AW's than those banners!!! ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...


not academics, pride, education, employees, reputation, present or future ANYTHING....those banners are the living, breathing SOUL of that institution....if you can't see that, you haven't been paying attention...

This is true. Taking the banners away is both right and a big fat slap in the face to those who have cheated the whole NCAA world for way too many years. And it should just be the start of the punishments. I want the Cheaters to understand that those banners are kaput, that they no longer exist. Duke fans in North Carolina will have no trouble putting down anyone who cries, bleats, or otherwise sniffs or pouts about the unfairness of being punished.

[CameronBlue]

This is true. Taking the banners away is both right and a big fat slap in the face to those who have cheated the whole NCAA world for way too many years. And it should just be the start of the punishments. I want the Cheaters to understand that those banners are kaput, that they no longer exist. Duke fans in North Carolina will have no trouble putting down anyone who cries, bleats, or otherwise sniffs or pouts about the unfairness of being punished.

Well that would be nice. Ultimately this is a sentiment that echoes scarcely beyond these pages and certainly not through the ranks of the NCAA members to a significant extent. As everyone here knows the banners are safe and true to their Trumpian ignominy the UNC faithful will see vindication in any decision by the NCAA that doesn't strip them of their titles.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Last edited by CameronBlue; Today at 06:23 PM. Reason: hanging preposition and a couple that were loitering.
Shout out for your grammatical correction, but I need to hear more about how these two affected your posting abilities.

[CameronBlue]

Shout out for your grammatical correction, but I need to hear more about how these two affected your posting abilities.

They just looked up to no good. Monosyllabic words unnerve me.

[CameronBornAndBred]

They just looked up to no good. Monosyllabic words unnerve me.
Whew, at least it wasn't shady characters versing badly in the bushes.

[Rich]

Monosyllabic words unnerve me.

Monosyllabic words would seem quite apropos given the target of this board's subject. Hell, unintelligible grunts would even work.

[Indoor66]

Monosyllabic words unnerve me.

They are only a problem when you get the accent on the wrong syllable. :mad::cool:

[tteettimes]

I'm going to stick to drinking my single malt
Don't give me any of whatever you guys are drinking......makes you talk funny 🍻🍻

[CameronBlue]

Monosyllabic words would seem quite apropos given the target of this board's subject. Hell, unintelligible grunts would even work.

I wonder if there's Rosetta Stone software for conversing in onomatopoeia. Maybe I'd understand the logic behind Wheat's defense of Roy a little better.

[MartyClark]

I wonder if there's Rosetta Stone software for conversing in onomatopoeia. Maybe I'd understand the logic behind Wheat's defense of Roy a little better.

To further derail this thread, a chorus from a great John Prine song-

"Onomatopoeia,

I don't want to see ya

Speaking in a foreign tongue."

[BigWayne]

New article posted at Inside Higher Ed commenting on UNC's middle finger response. (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/10/will-u-north-carolinas-challenge-ncaas-authority-work)

It quotes Ridpath and Willingham that have been widely active in the coverage of the UNC case, but also brings in some other commentators. Inside Higher Ed is focused on general news about universities with sports being a minor part of their coverage so this is probably putting the issue in front of some new eyes. It wraps up with this comment:


"If the NCAA does not have the authority of its members to govern academics as it relates to athletics, then it is truly nothing more than a trade cartel," he said. "Its authority is derived from its members, and its members have long delegated it the authority to regulate academic fraud when that fraud implicates athletics. An institution like UNC challenging the legitimacy of the NCAA's power could substantially weaken the association's future ability to maintain those rules."

[Jarhead]

Another article by Dane Kane in today's News and Observer, ironically on the obituary page, covers a suit filed against UNC and the NCAA by two former athletes, Devon Ramsay, a football player, and Rashandra McCrants, a woman's basketball player. The news is that the judge hearing the case has dropped the NCAA from the suit. Click here (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article95404217.html)for the story. There is also an indication that two more athletes may be filing a similar case.

[Karl Beem]

Another article by Dane Kane in today's News and Observer, ironically on the obituary page, covers a suit filed against UNC and the NCAA by two former athletes, Devon Ramsay, a football player, and Rashandra McCrants, a woman's basketball player. The news is that the judge hearing the case has dropped the NCAA from the suit. Click here (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article95404217.html)for the story. There is also an indication that two more athletes may be filing a similar case.

Rashandra McCants?

[YmoBeThere]

Rashandra McCants?

Her brother is more known in these parts...

[PackMan97]

Jay Smith files his response to UNC's response.

http://paperclassinc.com/the-shameful-beat-goes-on/

[ChrisP]

Jay Smith files his response to UNC's response.

http://paperclassinc.com/the-shameful-beat-goes-on/

Man, I was eating my breakfast as I read Jay's latest and now...I don't feel so good. This whole mess - and mainly UNC's cowardly response to it over the years - just makes me wanna throw up :(

But seriously, Jay really takes the UNC powers that be to task here. Great read. My favorite line: "UNC, from the beginning of this sordid episode, has made escaping accountability its number one priority."

[devildeac]

Jay Smith files his response to UNC's response.

http://paperclassinc.com/the-shameful-beat-goes-on/

Nice find. Scathing. Dear God, somehow/someway, please let this find its way to the COI.

[Newton_14]

Man, I was eating my breakfast as I read Jay's latest and now...I don't feel so good. This whole mess - and mainly UNC's cowardly response to it over the years - just makes me wanna throw up :(

But seriously, Jay really takes the UNC powers that be to task here. Great read. My favorite line: "UNC, from the beginning of this sordid episode, has made escaping accountability its number one priority."

Great read indeed. Below is my favorite quote because it nails it. Boom goes the dynamite!


The problem, however, is that a specific motive to help athletes, and particularly men’s basketball players, was always the driver of the scandal. Course enrollments show it. The Cadwalader report shows it. Cheated shows it. The transcripts show it.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Maybe my impression is all wrong but I get the distinct feeling that UNC-Cheat has been successful at purposefully keeping the dialogue focused at the level of sweeping/broad accusations rather than allow the conversation and investigation to get focused on very specific details and moments - like the ones called out by Jay Smith, again. And so by keeping things very general, it's easier for them to argue and to get folks to buy into their PR bull. Whereas it would be much harder to refute specific instances of cheating where evidence leaves no doubt as to the eligibility of specific players during specific seasons. All it takes is one ineligible player to have wins and championships nullified. But they keep getting to talk about anomalous classes and argue on the basis of generalizations rather than have to prove that AFAM 280 or McCants' infamous zero to hero offseason were anything other than indefensible cheating. Why is it that the NCAA hasn't just focused on key moments/instances of cheating instead of trying to argue fraud on a broad scale?

[MartyClark]

I have followed all this casually, primarily on this board but also, a little bit, on IC. I I'm a civil litigation attorney with no NCAA experience but I don't have a good feeling about the outcome here.

At least in a civil, jury setting, complication usually works in favor of the defense. In my world, the defense usually argues that they were not at fault. If they were at fault, their conduct didn't cause any damages, If the conduct did cause damages, it wasn't as great as claimed. Because of the burden of proof, this can be very effective.

I worry that UNC has thrown up enough smoke screens and made this too complicated for the NCAA to hammer them. I also doubt that the NCAA has sufficient willpower to take on this flagship program. Hope I'm wrong.

[madscavenger]

I have followed all this casually, primarily on this board but also, a little bit, on IC. I I'm a civil litigation attorney with no NCAA experience but I don't have a good feeling about the outcome here.

At least in a civil, jury setting, complication usually works in favor of the defense. In my world, the defense usually argues that they were not at fault. If they were at fault, their conduct didn't cause any damages, If the conduct did cause damages, it wasn't as great as claimed. Because of the burden of proof, this can be very effective.

I worry that UNC has thrown up enough smoke screens and made this too complicated for the NCAA to hammer them. I also doubt that the NCAA has sufficient willpower to take on this flagship program. Hope I'm wrong.

Well its pretty much a given, should the NCAA stick to their own by-laws (or whatever you want to call them) that what you call smokescreens would play a role. UNC has top notch lawyers, but this shouldn't be a venue where such expertise enables their prowess. The rules and procedures differ significantly. In this arena, it is the NCAA's expertise that has the upper hand. Nuances are not a stranger. Note that the predication of "should" is at the center of why straight forward execution of the by-laws has been compromised. They, as you mentioned, simply do not have the willpower. However potentiation of lack of willpower due to influential and conveniently placed individuals (particularly; Emmert, Swofford, the head honcho at ESPN, and big big money people amongst Trustees and the NC legal community) has been the mostly unsaid and unreported. The initial three individuals all, as you probably know, have strong UNC connections and may themselves have had prior knowledge of improprieties (to be kind). In any case, what one might refer to as "smokescreens" are not in any way intended to be smokescreens hampering the NCAA in either the investigative or penalty stages. The NCAA very well knows its stated mission and the requirements representing enforcement of such. The smokescreens' intent is a horse of a different color. They are to meant to obfuscate, yes, but not for the eyes of the NCAA. The purpose is twofold: (a) it is a combination full court press/four corners attempt to provide cover for the NCAA (and those behind the scene exerting influence), and (b) the scandal is so extensive and lasted so long, the Carolina brand, at minimum, is at risk of suffering a nuclear meltdown. Such is the nature of the smokescreen. The NCAA has not been compliant in exercising its own role, it's raison d'etre. Smokescreens have no effect there. They already knew wherein they fail.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Poor Campbell, I thought they were supposed to have a good law school.

The NCAA found that, for five years from 2010-11 to 2014-15, Campbell used 34 student-athletes in 10 sports who were either not making the grades or not making the right progress toward a degree.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncaa-punishes-campbell-for-playing-with-ineligible-athletes-to-compete/15951320/

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Poor Campbell, I thought they were supposed to have a good law school.


http://www.wralsportsfan.com/ncaa-punishes-campbell-for-playing-with-ineligible-athletes-to-compete/15951320/
Poor Campbell. If only they had had a chance to learn from UNC. But alas, their timing was off.

[77devil]

Poor Campbell. If only they had had a chance to learn from UNC. But alas, their timing was off.

See what happens when you do the right thing and self report.

[WiJoe]

wait until you see what happens when you deny, deny, deny. Spoiler alert: it will be NOTHING (for ol' huck's cheaters)