unc Athletics Scandal: NCAA Procedural Hearing Soon!

[Atlanta Duke]

Dan Kane is back with a lengthy story in the N&O regarding the UNC "investigation" of the bogus classes scam

Carolina's Blind Side - At UNC, a missed clue, and a mantra: This was not about athletics

Newly released correspondence reflects a mindset at UNC-Chapel Hill that doubted or disputed information pointing to the athletic roots of a scheme of bogus classes. University lawyers missed, or chose to ignore, an early clue that could have unraveled the fabric of the scheme...

The lawyers’ lack of vigor in 2010 was representative of leaders at UNC and the university system, a review of tens of thousands of pages of records recently released to The News & Observer shows. That correspondence reflects a mindset that doubted or disputed information pointing to the athletic roots of the scandal – and reveals anger and frustration from some leaders directed at board members or reporters who pushed for more disclosure....

This story has unfolded slowly for six years. Now, as the NCAA’s latest enforcement case nears its end, The N&O has reviewed the newly released correspondence, looking for clues about why it took so long for one of the country’s top public universities to discover the full scope of its corrosive shadow curriculum.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article101978907.html

Apparently the article posted online today will be the first of a series

[-jk]

Just to make sure folks don't forget the basics:


The findings were so shocking they made network newscasts: 18 years of fake classes that had no instruction, automatic high marks for papers “graded” by Crowder, a scheme born to help maintain the eligibility of athletes in major revenue sports. Her boss, department chairman Nyang’oro, created three more bogus classes after Crowder retired in 2009.

(They're still gonna skate...)

-jk

[BD80]

You're saying you cover them up.

You must have taken The Art of Artful Art 101 (a paper class independent study) at UNC summer school

All that is required is to submit a paper at the end of the class covered in Wite-Out. Everyone who does (or has an advisor submit it for them) gets an A-. The "-" is later redacted.

Oh wait. I just described the grading process for EVERY class a unc scholarship athlete takes.

Somehow this got teleported from the longer unc scandal thread.

[hallcity]

The odd thing is that this didn't appear in the print edition of the N&O. Kane did a 4 part story and the N&O spiked it?

[richardjackson199]

All that is required is to submit a paper at the end of the class covered in Wite-Out. Everyone who does (or has an advisor submit it for them) gets an A-. The "-" is later redacted.

Oh wait. I just described the grading process for EVERY class a unc scholarship athlete takes.

Somehow this got teleported from the longer unc scandal thread.

Maybe it got teleported to this thread because The Art of Artful Art 101 was supposed to be taught by none other than Art Chansky (stolen from brevity; plagiarism is encouraged in these paper classes).

But even though his name and signature appeared on the grade roll for the course, Art no-showed it. When asked about it Art started blathering 'I didn't teach the class. What did you expect? Coach K is selfish and his ridiculous recruiting advantage has angered many college coaches. And the NBA coaches remain livid.'

When asked why his name was on the grade roll if he didn't teach the class, he smiled and said, FERPA, FERPA, FERPA, FERPA. UNC officials declined to release relevant emails, despite repeated requests from The N&O. They cited the state’s personnel law and the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.

[OldPhiKap]

(They're still gonna skate...)

-jk

But Cleveland State may get the death penalty.

[Atlanta Duke]

The odd thing is that this didn't appear in the print edition of the N&O. Kane did a 4 part story and the N&O spiked it?

My guess is just another example of how newspapers operate these days - the story to which I linked showed up online mid-day

I would bet this story rolls out in the Sunday print edition and assume subsequent articles in the four part series are printed in the paper throughout next week

N&O is being very thorough in documenting its reporting, identifying who agreed to talk and who did not

Those interviewed:

Former Chancellor Holden Thorp; former UNC trustee chairman Wade Hargrove; former interim general counsel David Parker; spokesman Rick White; former general counsel Leslie Strohm; attorneys Kenneth Wainstein and Joseph Jay of the Cadwalader law firm; former board of governors member Burley Mitchell; former system president Tom Ross; current system president Margaret Spellings; system spokeswoman Joni Worthington; associate athletic director Vince Ille; Orange County District Attorney Jim Woodall; board of governors chairman Louis Bissette; and former Gov. Jim Martin...

Those who declined to speak or who could not be reached:

NCAA officials; several current and former attorneys in UNC’s general counsel office; Swahili instructor Alphonse Mutima; Chancellor Carol Folt; former board of governors chairs Peter Hans, Hannah Gage and John Fennebresque; former board of governors members Hari Nath, Ann Goodnight, Jim Deal, Walter Davenport and Brent Barringer; former and current trustees including Dwight Stone (chairman), Lowry Caudill (past chairman), Alston Gardner, Sallie Shuping-Russell, Peter Grauer, Charles Duckett; former chief spokeswoman Nancy Davis; former chief of staff Erin Schuettpelz; former athletic tutor Whitney Read; UNC history professor James Leloudis; and former tennis player Joe Frierson.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article101978907.html#storylink=cpy

Note that bold agent of change and transparency Carol Folt was among those who declined to speak to the N&O

[Stray Gator]

An e-mail to N & O subscribers today provided the following announcement about the upcoming Sunday edition:

"Carolina's Blind Side: Read our new four-part investigative series that reveals why it took so long to uncover the UNC academic scandal
Read our new investigative series online now."

[hallcity]

An e-mail to N & O subscribers today provided the following announcement about the upcoming Sunday edition:

"Carolina's Blind Side: Read our new four-part investigative series that reveals why it took so long to uncover the UNC academic scandal
Read our new investigative series online now."

In that case, it sounds like Kane prepared a four part series but the N&O was only willing to publish one part. They just let him post the rest online.

[Stray Gator]

In that case, it sounds like Kane prepared a four part series but the N&O was only willing to publish one part. They just let him post the rest online.

That's not the way I read it. My interpretation is that the N & O intends to publish the entire 4-part series in the paper edition starting Sunday.

[hallcity]

That's not the way I read it. My interpretation is that the N & O intends to publish the entire 4-part series in the paper edition starting Sunday.

I don't remember a case where a newspaper allowed a reporter to start publishing a series online two days before it started appearing in print. Whatever is going on, it's odd.

[-jk]

I don't remember a case where a newspaper allowed a reporter to start publishing a series online two days before it started appearing in print. Whatever is going on, it's odd.

As a Washington Post subscriber, I often see online stories a few days before seeing them in print.

-jk

[hallcity]

As a Washington Post subscriber, I often see online stories a few days before seeing them in print.

-jk
I tweeted a question to Kane and he replied that it would all appear in the print edition. The newspaper business is a mystery to me now. I think it's a mystery to the publishers as well since no one seems to be able to make a profit in the newspaper business.

[Rich]

As a Washington Post subscriber, I often see online stories a few days before seeing them in print.

-jk

Portions of the NY Times weekend paper are online on Friday. It's a new era.

[LastRowFan]

The odd thing is that this didn't appear in the print edition of the N&O. Kane did a 4 part story and the N&O spiked it?

The front page of today's (Saturday) print edition (top left corner) advertises this as "coming Sunday" and available on line now. This story is featured not buried.

It is a great article. I am eager to see the rest.

It continues to amaze me that they are going to get away with all of this.

[devilseven]

I guess the NCAA views the removal of championships, etc. as punishment enough for North Carolina. That way they won't have to punish the flagship university for such trivial violations.

[ChrisP]

I guess the NCAA views the removal of championships, etc. as punishment enough for North Carolina. That way they won't have to punish the flagship university for such trivial violations.

Umm...what?

[budwom]

Umm...what?

your sarcasm meter may be turned off...

[OldPhiKap]

I guess the NCAA views the removal of championships, etc. as punishment enough for North Carolina. That way they won't have to punish the flagship university for such trivial violations.

"Greensboro and Asheville must pay for the sins of Chapel Hill!!!"

[Rich]

I guess the NCAA views the removal of championships, etc. as punishment enough for North Carolina. That way they won't have to punish the flagship university for such trivial violations.


Umm...what?

I think the OP was sarcastically referring to the NCAA's response to North Carolina's transgender bathroom law as sufficient punishment to UNC for their transgressions.

[devilseven]

"Greensboro and Asheville must pay for the sins of Chapel Hill!!!"

It's like destroying Zeboim or Admah for the sins of Sodom and Gonorrah.

Why not? It's usually Cleveland State that pays for the transgressions of the powerhouse universities.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

"Greensboro and Asheville must pay for the sins of Chapel Hill!!!"

Noooooooooo!

[weezie]

Hit 'em with the Kaaaaaaaaane!

[BigWayne]

Part 2 of 4 is up today. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102531722.html)

Leads off with the Julius Peppers transcript and the aftermath of that leading to the Jim Martin report. Kane spends a fair bot of time going over the background players like Lowry Caudill and their involvement in the obfuscation and coverup.

[77devil]

Part 2 of 4 is up today. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102531722.html)

Leads off with the Julius Peppers transcript and the aftermath of that leading to the Jim Martin report. Kane spends a fair bot of time going over the background players like Lowry Caudill and their involvement in the obfuscation and coverup.

Knowing they are gonna skate makes reading this all the more depressing. I did learn that Duke acquaintance and WH political director during Clinton's second term, Doug Sosnik Trinity '78, was hired by Thorpe for PR advice. Maybe Doug was a trojan horse.

[wsb3]

I spent to much time thinking that maybe the Cheats would get what was coming to them. I love DBR but saying they should have gotten out in front of this..In a word No..because they spent millions to keep ill gained banners & punishment. And they won. Now their definition of winning has to come with having no conscious..an arrogance that yes we cheated but we are UNC & as such we should be allowed.

They skated plain & simple & they don't care that they cheated to compete.

The NCAA should just pack up shop. They have no integrity.

[Jarhead]

Most of us have forgotten that unc just recently responded to the modified notice of infractions. That is step when other universities have suggested what the punishment should be. Now the committee on infractions has a certain amount of time to make up their minds on punishment. I'm confident that their decisions will please most of us, but not all.

[slower]

Most of us have forgotten that unc just recently responded to the modified notice of infractions. That is step when other universities have suggested what the punishment should be. Now the committee on infractions has a certain amount of time to make up their minds on punishment. I'm confident that their decisions will please most of us, but not all.

I don't think most of us are expecting that sort of plot twist.

[sagegrouse]

Most of us have forgotten that unc just recently responded to the modified notice of infractions. That is step when other universities have suggested what the punishment should be. Now the committee on infractions has a certain amount of time to make up their minds on punishment. I'm confident that their decisions will please most of us, but not all.


I don't think most of us are expecting that sort of plot twist.

I expect UNC to be hammered by the NCAA, but I fully understand why many here are skeptical.

[OldPhiKap]

I expect UNC to be hammered by the NCAA, but I fully understand why many here are skeptical.

My brain says they get hammered.

My gut says they skate.

My mouth says "Go to Hell, you cheating pile of steaming excrement"


Internal turmoil, expressed verbally I guess.

[Avvocato]

Since I expect UNC to skate at this point, I can only dream that the NCAA unexpectedly hammers UNC, UNC sues, the NCAA doesn't back down and deposes all of the UNC administrators, athletes, coaches, etc. under oath and we see what really comes out. Of course, the NCAA would probably be afraid of being exposed as a fraud as well, so I don't anticipate any of this happening. But a guy can dream.

[Rich]

UNC skates on the technicality that the bogus classes were open to the general school population, not just the athletes, and therefore is not under the purview of the NCAA. The school will be admonished, but the NCAA will abdicate responsibility for instituting any real punishment.

[flyingdutchdevil]

UNC skates on the technicality that the bogus classes were open to the general school population, not just the athletes, and therefore is not under the purview of the NCAA. The school will be admonished, but the NCAA will abdicate responsibility for instituting any real punishment.

Bingo. Really pathetic on NCAA's part. Obviously more pathetic on UNC's part.

[superdave]

Portions of the NY Times weekend paper are online on Friday. It's a new era.

When I first moved to DC and was looking for an apartment, people told me to check out the Saturday edition of Washington Post's Sunday edition.

I am still confused. But that was apparently where all the classified ads were, back when those were a thing.

[superdave]

Bingo. Really pathetic on NCAA's part. Obviously more pathetic on UNC's part.

A good friend of mine who went to UNC from out of state as an under-grad told me a few weeks ago that he picked the school because he thought having a winning athletic program like UNC hoops would make college a fun experience. He picked it over a lot of much better schools. He said he saw Dean as like this basketball and life guru who did things the right way. He said he thinks Dean looked the other way, and my friend is reconsidering contributing to the university.

I would love to see polling data for Unc alums to under stand what their feelings are. Are they in the stubborn "It was an academic thing" camp or are they questioning everything or somewhere in between? I would also like to see how giving has been affected?

I am guessing that it would be impossible to find anything more than anecdotes.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Part 3 is up...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102613232.html

[richardjackson199]

Maybe the hackers got Lawson's UNC transcripts: :)

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nba/ty-lawson-says-he-is-being-extorted-by-computer-hackers/ar-BBwlxw7?li=BBnba9I

After reading Kane Part 3 - it just further emphasizes that UNC skating with the notion that "it's all academic" and not tied to athletics is an absolute joke. But the joke is not funny, it's sad.

And amazingly it looks like it's going to work for them. Winning trumps integrity. If you cheat and get caught, just delay, deny, cite FERPA, and get good lawyers to make it go away.

I wonder if the new Kane articles could be read and considered by the NCAA to underscore the fact that this scandal not being tied to athletics is ludicrous?

[swood1000]

Kane seems to be restating the facts of the case. The problem is that in the Amended Notice of Allegations (ANOA) the NCAA dropped the charge that these “anomalous classes” constituted extra benefits to athletes, presumably because they concluded that the classes were offered to all students, not just athletes. Having done that, they eviscerated their case against UNC. For example, allegation 5 charges a lack of institutional control for failure to “…identify or investigate anomalous courses…” UNC’s reply is that if there is no charge relating to the underlying “anomalous courses,” then there can be no charge of a lack of institutional control for failing to identify those courses. UNC argues that the NCAA’s job is to make sure that athletes don’t get special treatment, and that the NCAA does not have authority to determine that classes available to all students are inadequate. That is the role of SACS. From UNC's reply:


The ANOA does not allege that the academic counselors in ASPSA violated any rules through their recommendation of anomalous courses to student-athletes. Inasmuch as the anomalous courses were offered to the student body in general and therefore did not violate any NCAA rules, there can be no restriction on ASPSA assisting student-athletes in enrolling in the courses. Otherwise, member institutions could be at risk for a failure to monitor for conduct that applies to all students and is not tied to student-athletes’ status as athletes. Accordingly, this part of the allegation also presents an issue outside the authority granted to the NCAA by its membership.

…For the above reasons and because there are no underlying NCAA rule violations regarding ASPSA’s involvement in student-athletes’ enrollment in the anomalous courses that were generally available to all the University’s students, there should be no finding of lack of institutional control.

The only extra benefits they charged concerned the help that Boxill gave to WBB players. I have argued that they could and should have charged extra benefits to athletes as a consequence of the AFRI/AFAM classes. However, since they didn’t do so I am not very hopeful that they will be able to use these classes to support a charge of a lack of institutional control. It seems that they will have to depend on the charges against Boxill, Crowder and Nyang'oro for that, and the charges against Crowder and Nyang'oro were for a failure to cooperate with the investigation.

On the positive side, it's possible that the hearing panel will be influenced by these factors and will find UNC guilty of LOIC where ordinarily the charges against Boxill, Crowder and Nyang'oro might not have been enough to support LOIC.

[DukePA]

It should not matter to the NCAA that non-athlete students took fraudulent classes. Bottom line- academically ineligible student athletes played and all of those wins should be vacated.

[swood1000]

Is it possible to allege a lack of institutional control for allowing the athletics program to commit act X, where there is no allegation that act X was a violation of NCAA rules? Here are the provisions relating to LOIC:


2.1 The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility.

2.1.1 Responsibility for Control.
It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution's president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures. (Revised: 3/8/06)

2.8 The Principle of Rules Compliance.

2.8.1 Responsibility of Institution.
Each institution shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations of the Association in the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics programs. It shall monitor its programs to assure compliance and to identify and report to the Association instances in which compliance has not been achieved. In any such instance, the institution shall cooperate fully with the Association and shall take appropriate corrective actions. Members of an institution's staff, student-athletes, and other individuals and groups representing the institution's athletics interests shall comply with the applicable Association rules, and the member institution shall be responsible for such compliance.

6.01 General Principle.
6.01.1 Institutional Control. The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.

[swood1000]

It should not matter to the NCAA that non-athlete students took fraudulent classes. Bottom line- academically ineligible student athletes played and all of those wins should be vacated.
Unfortunately, the NCAA dropped that allegation in the ANOA so MBB wins are unlikely to be vacated on this basis.

[DukieInKansas]

Probably a silly question/false hope but here goes. Does the Amended NOA supercede the original NOA or augment it?

[swood1000]

Probably a silly question/false hope but here goes. Does the Amended NOA supercede the original NOA or augment it?
That's what I had originally hoped, but the new one replaces the old one.

[Merlindevildog91]

Probably a silly question/false hope but here goes. Does the Amended NOA supercede the original NOA or augment it?

There are no silly questions when it comes to the NCAA, just silly answers and rationales for coming down with fire from heaven on, say, Cleveland State, and patting certain other teams gently on the wrist.

[hallcity]

Not that I'm expecting it but the COI could reinstate charges. That would cause additional delay. Also, the assumption is that the NCAA can't punish football and basketball based upon lack of institutional control that benefited those programs but I haven't heard a reason why that's impossible. It may not have happened before but UNC's case is unique. But for such a thing to happen, the COI would have to look at the case in a fundamentally different way than the enforcement staff and that seems unlikely. The enforcement staff seems to have been trying hard to avoid any inflicting any punishment other than a fine and a meaningless probation. Presumably, the enforcement staff will be arguing for this while UNC argues for them receiving no punishment. It's hard for a tribunal to go against that sort of resistance to serious punishment.

People who view the NCAA enforcement process cynically may be citing the NCAA's spinelessness in this case for decades.

[swood1000]

Is it possible to allege a lack of institutional control for allowing the athletics program to commit act X, where there is no allegation that act X was a violation of NCAA rules? Here are the provisions relating to LOIC:

It looks like the enforcement staff is arguing that they can charge a lack of institutional control simply as a result of coming in and seeing what a sloppy mess the control procedures are/were in. They can say "Look, you allowed X to happen, and while X is not a violation of NCAA rules it is clearly undesirable and could only come about as a result of a lack of institutional control. We don't have to wait until something bad happens before charging you. LOIC is an offense because it makes violations more likely but it does not depend on there being resulting violations, so the fact that there were no charges related to the "anomalous courses" is irrelevant."

Maybe the enforcement staff has a LOIC case after all.

[BigWayne]

While the NOA is now short on specifics, it does include the LOIC charge, which they always tout as the most serious charge that can be leveled. UNC basically thumbed their nose at the NCAA with their response. Most people with a bit of self worth and/or big enough egos to sit on the COI would probably be privately pissed at the UNC response. No value to a COI player to come out publicly until after they rule. The COI can still hit UNC. If I was on the COI, I would say nothing until I got in the meeting to argue what to do to them. There is nothing to be gained right now by anyone at the NCAA or COI making any public statements. Just let UNC think they are getting away with it and they will be more likely to leave you alone to make your ruling.

[BD80]

While the NOA is now short on specifics, it does include the LOIC charge, which they always tout as the most serious charge that can be leveled. UNC basically thumbed their nose at the NCAA with their response. Most people with a bit of self worth and/or big enough egos to sit on the COI would probably be privately pissed at the UNC response. No value to a COI player to come out publicly until after they rule. The COI can still hit UNC. If I was on the COI, I would say nothing until I got in the meeting to argue what to do to them. There is nothing to be gained right now by anyone at the NCAA or COI making any public statements. Just let UNC think they are getting away with it and they will be more likely to leave you alone to make your ruling.

Just hit them in the back of the head with a baseball bat as they enjoy their pasta and Chianti ... Old school, but effective.

[sammy3469]

It looks like the enforcement staff is arguing that they can charge a lack of institutional control simply as a result of coming in and seeing what a sloppy mess the control procedures are/were in. They can say "Look, you allowed X to happen, and while X is not a violation of NCAA rules it is clearly undesirable and could only come about as a result of a lack of institutional control. We don't have to wait until something bad happens before charging you. LOIC is an offense because it makes violations more likely but it does not depend on there being resulting violations, so the fact that there were no charges related to the "anomalous courses" is irrelevant."

Maybe the enforcement staff has a LOIC case after all.

I've said that from the beginning.

The NCAA is basically alleging that the athletic department (from the ASPSA counselors up to Baddour who heard about the problem in 2005-6 from Dean Own) repeatedly did nothing even though they knew the courses were anomalous and that they had the responsibility to do so (this is the crux of the LOIC charge).

UNC's response is literally this:


The academic irregularities – grave as they were – do not, however, constitute a lack of institutional control under the NCAA constitution and bylaws. The University acknowledges that information was available that should have prompted questions about the anomalous courses and that it should have identified and investigated them sooner. As explained in Section II and in response to Allegation 4,however, the anomalous courses did not violate NCAA rules. Neither the courses nor student-athlete enrollment in them are the subject of an allegation in the ANOA. The NCAA has recognized that the anomalous courses raised core academic issues beyond the scope of the NCAA constitution and bylaws. Absent any underlying violation of NCAA rules, the University disagrees that a failure to identify or investigate these courses somehow violates NCAA rules.

The same analysis applies to the University’s guidance and supervision of ASPSA employees related to their failure to assess the appropriateness of the anomalous courses. The evaluation of course offerings is appropriately performed by the institution’s faculty and academic leaders – not ASPSA. The NCAA constitution and bylaws do not extend to such core academic judgments.

Basically, athletic personnel have no obligation to report possible systemic academic issues to leadership. It's ludicrous on it's face, but it's not spelled out in the NCAA manual or by-laws that that obligation exists which is why UNC went with it.

To put it simpler, the NCAA is saying part of "control" within the athletic program is having policies/procedures in place to force/allow athletic personnel to report academic irregularities to academic leadership. If you don't have those and then systemic academic problems occur that athletic personnel knew about then it's a violation of 2.8.1 and LOIC.

[BigWayne]

Part 4 today. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102701612.html)
Starts with the episode where Dr Julius is charged over the $12K payment and moves through the Wainstein report and the latest UNC NOA response. It concludes with a strange reference to Lance Armstrong.

[Skitzle]

I've said that from the beginning.

The NCAA is basically alleging that the athletic department (from the ASPSA counselors up to Baddour who heard about the problem in 2005-6 from Dean Own) repeatedly did nothing even though they knew the courses were anomalous and that they had the responsibility to do so (this is the crux of the LOIC charge).

UNC's response is literally this:



Basically, athletic personnel have no obligation to report possible systemic academic issues to leadership. It's ludicrous on it's face, but it's not spelled out in the NCAA manual or by-laws that that obligation exists which is why UNC went with it.

To put it simpler, the NCAA is saying part of "control" within the athletic program is having policies/procedures in place to force/allow athletic personnel to report academic irregularities to academic leadership. If you don't have those and then systemic academic problems occur that athletic personnel knew about then it's a violation of 2.8.1 and LOIC.

So the argument is that the NCAA is not mandated with and does not have the ability or reach to evaluate the academic integrity and quality of college courses. I get that, but these weren't college courses. They were created by and graded by an Administrator not a professor.

I mean IF the COI wants to punish, I think they still have the jurisdiction to punish... Maybe not individual programs or individual wins vacated, but LOI seems pretty clear here.

[richardjackson199]

Part 4 today. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102701612.html)
Starts with the episode where Dr Julius is charged over the $12K payment and moves through the Wainstein report and the latest UNC NOA response. It concludes with a strange reference to Lance Armstrong.

Part 4 is good. It highlights more direct links between the scandal and athletic eligibility as uncovered by Wainstein. It includes quotes from Chancellor Folt, UNC Trustee Gardner, etc. admitting that the scandal was tied to their "big time college athletics."

The Lance Armstrong reference at the end was a quote from a UNC grad former board of governor's member. The quote basically indirectly implies that the right thing to do would be for UNC to take responsibility, apologize, and vacate their wins because they clearly had broken the rules. The quote implies that UNC, like Lance Armstrong, chose to do the opposite by not self imposing any sanctions or taking any responsibility. She implies that by allowing the NCAA to choose sanctions and punish them, UNC has forever changed the course of their future and perception.

She admits the analogy may not work in UNC's case. They don't think so either - they're arrogant enough to think their strategy will win, and it looks like they are right. They will keep winning, they'll keep their banners, but their reputation will never be the same. The Carolina Way has a new meaning.

[swood1000]

I've said that from the beginning.

The NCAA is basically alleging that the athletic department (from the ASPSA counselors up to Baddour who heard about the problem in 2005-6 from Dean Own) repeatedly did nothing even though they knew the courses were anomalous and that they had the responsibility to do so (this is the crux of the LOIC charge).

UNC's response is literally this:



Basically, athletic personnel have no obligation to report possible systemic academic issues to leadership. It's ludicrous on it's face, but it's not spelled out in the NCAA manual or by-laws that that obligation exists which is why UNC went with it.

To put it simpler, the NCAA is saying part of "control" within the athletic program is having policies/procedures in place to force/allow athletic personnel to report academic irregularities to academic leadership. If you don't have those and then systemic academic problems occur that athletic personnel knew about then it's a violation of 2.8.1 and LOIC.

I think that when they a charge of a lack of institutional control the focus is on whether the administration of the university is exercising adequate control over the athletics department — they are looking at the actions of the administration more than the actions of the athletics staff.



2.1 The Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility.

2.1.1 Responsibility for Control.
It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution's president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures. (Revised: 3/8/06)

6.01 General Principle.
6.01.1 Institutional Control. The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.


So maybe the argument of the enforcement staff will be that turning a blind eye to the "anomalous course" problem demonstrates a laissez-fair attitude and a general laxness in oversight that shows that there was a lack of institutional control. UNC is arguing that any evidence of LOIC must itself constitute an independent violation of NCAA rules, such as extra benefits. But clearly LOIC can exist and be charged even if it has not yet allowed a resulting infraction to take place.

UNC is also arguing that the "anomalous course" evidence in this case is academic, which is outside the NCAA's area of expertise to evaluate. They are trying to treat it as if it were a case of the NCAA coming in and saying that some classes were too easy, and that that is an issue for SACS. The trouble is that they allowed a non-faculty member to give grades to many students over a very long period of time, and there is evidence of faculty members handling more independent studies than could reasonably be handled. Factors such as these take it outside the realm of academic judgment. In fact, UNC admits the undesirable nature of what happened and that they should have caught it:


The University acknowledges that information was available that should have prompted questions about the anomalous courses and that it should have identified and investigated them sooner.

That's all that should matter. In the law, one person can't sue another for negligence unless some harm has been caused. UNC is trying to treat this as a negligence case, and says that before LOIC is charged there must be some harm that resulted and that harm must constitute a violation of a specific NCAA rule. But I think they're going to lose on this issue. The panel will find that mere carelessness is by itself enough to constitute LOIC.

[dudog84]

I think that when they a charge of a lack of institutional control the focus is on whether the administration of the university is exercising adequate control over the athletics department — they are looking at the actions of the administration more than the actions of the athletics staff.



So maybe the argument of the enforcement staff will be that turning a blind eye to the "anomalous course" problem demonstrates a laissez-fair attitude and a general laxness in oversight that shows that there was a lack of institutional control. UNC is arguing that any evidence of LOIC must itself constitute an independent violation of NCAA rules, such as extra benefits. But clearly LOIC can exist and be charged even if it has not yet allowed a resulting infraction to take place.

UNC is also arguing that the "anomalous course" evidence in this case is academic, which is outside the NCAA's area of expertise to evaluate. They are trying to treat it as if it were a case of the NCAA coming in and saying that some classes were too easy, and that that is an issue for SACS. The trouble is that they allowed a non-faculty member to give grades to many students over a very long period of time, and there is evidence of faculty members handling more independent studies than could reasonably be handled. Factors such as these take it outside the realm of academic judgment. In fact, UNC admits the undesirable nature of what happened and that they should have caught it:



That's all that should matter. In the law, one person can't sue another for negligence unless some harm has been caused. UNC is trying to treat this as a negligence case, and says that before LOIC is charged there must be some harm that resulted and that harm must constitute a violation of a specific NCAA rule. But I think they're going to lose on this issue. The panel will find that mere carelessness is by itself enough to constitute LOIC.

I think the harm is to all the other NCAA member institutions and their students and student/athletes who were denied wins and championships (and yes, that means revenue) because of the uneven playing field.

As for the specific rule, isn't there something in the NCAA mission statement about integrity, sportsmanship, fair play, or something of the sort? I understand that isn't a "rule", but don't all rules stem from the mission statement?

[swood1000]

I think the harm is to all the other NCAA member institutions and their students and student/athletes who were denied wins and championships (and yes, that means revenue) because of the uneven playing field.

As for the specific rule, isn't there something in the NCAA mission statement about integrity, sportsmanship, fair play, or something of the sort? I understand that isn't a "rule", but don't all rules stem from the mission statement?
OK, but the enforcement staff probably doesn't think it has the burden of proving any specific harm that resulted from the LOIC. That would put them back in the business of having to prove that students who took these courses did no work and submitted papers having no content, and consequently should not have been eligible and so there was a breach of sportsmanship. Although we know that's true it might not be that easy to prove. The papers are no longer available. It would be a lot easier to prove that an administration that allowed this kind of activity was not exercising adequate administrative control, irrespective of any other rule violation.

[martydoesntfoul]

The linked emails within Part IV are illuminating. These people actually argued they were going above and beyond to get to the bottom of the scandal by spending millions they didn't have to. Then they turn around and pressure Bloomberg's editorial staff, crush Mary Willingham, and then claim jurisdictional definitions to ensure the scandal stays as a carefully balanced and impenetrable bubble between the NCAA and SACS.

I'm as bewildered as anyone by the revised NOA. But riddle me this: If UNC-HW skates, then a blueprint for cheating is clearly established, right? All you have to do is let regular students into the fake classes. As I've said before, I think we get something in the middle, like a slap on the wrist followed by the promise of stronger rules in the future so this doesn't happen again. And yet if this is the way out, how can any NCAA credibility remain? As we've noted on this board previously, minor schools have been punished severely for far less onerous transgressions.

Regardless, the embarrassment for the school and the exposed shocking void of integrity may have to be enough at this point. 9F

[swood1000]

...But riddle me this: If UNC-HW skates, then a blueprint for cheating is clearly established, right? All you have to do is let regular students into the fake classes. ...

Unless the COI slams UNC with LOIC. Then we have the new Carolina Rule: allowing fake classes demonstrates a lack of institutional control.

[martydoesntfoul]

Unless the COI slams UNC with LOIC. Then we have the new Carolina Rule: allowing fake classes demonstrates a lack of institutional control.

Amen to that!

[Dukelogger]

will not be reached and that is obvious to everyone now. While I'm very disappointed they will skate, and maybe I'm just trying too hard to be optimistic about the inevitable outcome, I actually think that this is in some ways the second best outcome. The best outcome - the most fair punishment in response to egregious rules violations over decades - would be to take down the two banners from '05 and '09. But beyond that I'm not sure any punishment has any teeth (missing one postseason, losing scholarships) that could even come close to matching the level to which the cheating took place. Tarhole fans know whether they care to admit it or not that others (Kentucky, Kansas, UL, Cuse) immediately think of them as "cheaters" that "got away with massive cheating" and the UNC / Carolina Way reputation is destroyed. Forever. Had they come forward, been punished, and claimed reform then I'm not sure their reputation nationally takes a hot, but the opposite has happened and they are hearing about it from national writers and other non-rival fan bases. For those of us living in the state of NC that is honestly a pretty big deal.

[hallcity]

Unless the COI slams UNC with LOIC. Then we have the new Carolina Rule: allowing fake classes demonstrates a lack of institutional control.

There's going to be a finding of LOIC. I don't see how even the willfully blind NCAA can avoid that one. Even viewed in a light most favorable to a UNC, their academic support staff, which was part of the athletic department, became aware of seriously anomalous courses. Instead of notifying the appropriate deans, the academic support staff proceeded to steer as many athletes as possible to courses they knew were phony. That's not just an academic problem. That's athletic department impropriety. That's LOIC.

[Skitzle]

There's going to be a finding of LOIC. I don't see how even the willfully blind NCAA can avoid that one. Even viewed in a light most favorable to a UNC, their academic support staff, which was part of the athletic department, became aware of seriously anomalous courses. Instead of notifying the appropriate deans, the academic support staff proceeded to steer as many athletes as possible to courses they knew were phony. That's not just an academic problem. That's athletic department impropriety. That's LOIC.

Yea I definitely agree. I think for us skating means Hanstravel still owning at National Championship. 05 and 09 need to be vacated, but they won't be as a result of the diminished nature of the ANOA.

Still its CLEAR that LOIC will still be charged, but forcing 2017-2018 NIT team to skip the playoffs just doesn't have the same bite as the previously mentioned potential punishments.

[LastRowFan]

NCAA punishments aside, the WSJ puts UNC next to Baylor and Ole Miss at the bottom (near hell?) in their "grid of shame."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/college-footballs-grid-of-shame-1472764117

The Carolina Way, indeed.

[sammy3469]

There's going to be a finding of LOIC. I don't see how even the willfully blind NCAA can avoid that one. Even viewed in a light most favorable to a UNC, their academic support staff, which was part of the athletic department, became aware of seriously anomalous courses. Instead of notifying the appropriate deans, the academic support staff proceeded to steer as many athletes as possible to courses they knew were phony. That's not just an academic problem. That's athletic department impropriety. That's LOIC.

FWIW, UNC is argument in a nutshell is that the athletic staff doesn't have the knowledge to know they were phony...ergo they have no obligation to report anything.

Obviously, any reasonable person would laugh at that argument which is why the NCAA went this way. Why get into the weeds on a course by course, player by player basis when you can just nuke (hopefully) the entire department in one broad brush.

[swood1000]

FWIW, UNC is argument in a nutshell is that the athletic staff doesn't have the knowledge to know they were phony...ergo they have no obligation to report anything.

To the extent that they argue that, they are admitting to allegation 4, which charges that "the institution violated the NCAA Principle of Rules Compliance":


2.8.1 Responsibility of Institution.
Each institution shall ... monitor its programs to assure compliance...

[PackMan97]

NCAA punishments aside, the WSJ puts UNC next to Baylor and Ole Miss at the bottom (near hell?) in their "grid of shame."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/college-footballs-grid-of-shame-1472764117

The Carolina Way, indeed.

For those finding the WSJ is paywalled when visitng that link, most paywalls will allow direct links from google, bing and other major search engines. Simply put the title in your favorite search engine and follow that link. *MOST* of the time, you'll be able to read the entire article.

I'd like to know what NC State did to be ranked halfway down on the shame axis. I know all about why we are on the weakling end of things.

I'm surprised Duke is viewed as weaker than NC State...maybe it's projections for this year? IDK.

[swood1000]

For those finding the WSJ is paywalled when visitng that link, most paywalls will allow direct links from google, bing and other major search engines. Simply put the title in your favorite search engine and follow that link. *MOST* of the time, you'll be able to read the entire article.
In addition, paywalls on sites like the New York Times and Washington Post, which limit the number of free times you can visit the site, can be circumvented by opening the page in a Chrome "incognito window." Right-click on the link to get that option.

[English]

In addition, paywalls on sites like the New York Times and Washington Post, which limit the number of free times you can visit the site, can be circumvented by opening the page in a Chrome "incognito window." Right-click on the link to get that option.

You can also click the Stop Loading button after the article loads but before the paywall message appears. Timing is everything.

I looked at the same grid from 2015 and compared it to this 2016 grid. In 2015, Duke falls comfortably in the upper right quartile (Powerhouse, Admirable) while the college of Chapel Hill remains firmly at the dregs of Embarrassing (but still Powerhouse). UNC has remained stationary year-over-year, while Duke has transitioned from Powerhouse to Weakling while remaining Admirable.

Fun exercise and visual.

[Dukelogger]

This still makes me laugh:
http://www.si.com/vault/2007/03/19/8403007/tyler-hansbrough

[DukieInKansas]

This still makes me laugh:
http://www.si.com/vault/2007/03/19/8403007/tyler-hansbrough

Wasn't this one a possibly suspect class for a semester?
"On otherinteresting classes
I'm taking Naval Weapons Systems. You learn about the engineering and operatingsystems that the Navy has on ships for weapons. I wanted classes about things Iwouldn't necessarily be exposed to on my own."

[porcophile]

Those who've been following the internal UNC politics of this business may recognize the name Joy Renner. She's the academically negligible untenured teacher of X-ray technicians who for some reason chaired the university's Faculty Athletics Committee through all of this mess. Under her leadership the FAC was remarkably inert, even for a faculty committee, and managed to avoid noticing that there were any, ah, irregularities. Ms. Renner has blocked a number of attempts to address the univrsity's problems, and she has been either complicit in the eligibility shenanigans (my belief) or remarkably incompetent. There is no other choice.
Now this woman has been chosen by Chancellor Folt to receive UNC's C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service Award, described as "one of the most coveted distinctions earned by faculty and staff," and indeed given in the past to many worthy and admirable folks. She was nominated by Lissa Broome, UNC's Faculty Athletics Representative (a pea from the same pod) and Kim Strom-Gottfried (the "Chief Ethics Officer' appointed by the chancellor to make sure everyone behaves ethically). Broome said of Renner that she "invok[ed] the power of listening to find discernment through discourse." Strom-Gottfried noted that "she has been effective in promoting change efforts while resisting pressure to change things precipitously or injudiciously."
This is just disgusting. There's no other word for it.

[dudog84]

Those who've been following the internal UNC politics of this business may recognize the name Joy Renner. She's the academically negligible untenured teacher of X-ray technicians who for some reason chaired the university's Faculty Athletics Committee through all of this mess. Under her leadership the FAC was remarkably inert, even for a faculty committee, and managed to avoid noticing that there were any, ah, irregularities. Ms. Renner has blocked a number of attempts to address the univrsity's problems, and she has been either complicit in the eligibility shenanigans (my belief) or remarkably incompetent. There is no other choice.
Now this woman has been chosen by Chancellor Folt to receive UNC's C. Knox Massey Distinguished Service Award, described as "one of the most coveted distinctions earned by faculty and staff," and indeed given in the past to many worthy and admirable folks. She was nominated by Lissa Broome, UNC's Faculty Athletics Representative (a pea from the same pod) and Kim Strom-Gottfried (the "Chief Ethics Officer' appointed by the chancellor to make sure everyone behaves ethically). Broome said of Renner that she "invok[ed] the power of listening to find discernment through discourse." Strom-Gottfried noted that "she has been effective in promoting change efforts while resisting pressure to change things precipitously or injudiciously."
This is just disgusting. There's no other word for it.

It's more fun if you say it in your best W.C. Fields voice. Ah yes.

[jdj4duke]

Sylvia Hatchell apparently has been given a two year contract extension. Guess that will keep things quiet a while. No mention of a clothing allowance.

[Indoor66]

Sylvia Hatchell apparently has been given a two year contract extension. Guess that will keep things quiet a while. No mention of a clothing allowance.

The clothing allowance will, obviously, be a new provision! I hope there's a mandatory aspect that also includes consulting services. 😁😈😥😎

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Sylvia Hatchell apparently has been given a two year contract extension. Guess that will keep things quiet a while. No mention of a clothing allowance.
Cesspool.

[Atlanta Duke]

Sylvia Hatchell apparently has been given a two year contract extension. Guess that will keep things quiet a while.

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately - Benjamin Franklin

[richardjackson199]

More word leaking out that UNC will probably skate, along with the usual pity-party quotes by ol Roy...

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17621622/roy-williams-not-asked-attend-ncaa-hearing-north-carolina-tar-heels-probe

[sagegrouse]

More word leaking out that UNC will probably skate, along with the usual pity-party quotes by ol Roy...

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17621622/roy-williams-not-asked-attend-ncaa-hearing-north-carolina-tar-heels-probe

Not what the article says.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Not what the article says.
Quite the Seinfeldian article... a story about nothing. Neither UNC nor Roy know when the hearing will be. So, let's "report" on that and draw some inane conclusions about nothing at all.

But it's fun to see Roy still referring to himself in the third person and whining about all the "junk" that's been going on and making his life so difficult. Poor Roy.

[TruBlu]

"Five investigations, five different groups that concluded Roy Williams didn't know what was going on, didn't know anything about it," he said.

The above quote is Roy's in the article.

Sounds kinda like "They performed a brain scan on me and found nothing".

[Indoor66]

"Five investigations, five different groups that concluded Roy Williams didn't know what was going on, didn't know anything about it," he said.

The above quote is Roy's in the article.

Sounds kinda like "They performed a brain scan on me and found nothing".

You are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too generous with your statement. :mad::cool:

[Ima Facultiwyfe]

Wasn't this one a possibly suspect class for a semester?
"On otherinteresting classes
I'm taking Naval Weapons Systems. You learn about the engineering and operatingsystems that the Navy has on ships for weapons. I wanted classes about things Iwouldn't necessarily be exposed to on my own."

Doubt that he could name one thing he's "learned on his own". Poor thing is just an idiot, bless his heart.
Love, Ima

[richardjackson199]

Not what the article says.

My apologies. Jeff Goodman is an ESPN insider, and not one I typically associate with inane conclusions. The article says:

"[Roy Williams' name] wasn't mentioned at all in the amended notice. The NCAA has alleged five Level 1 violations -- none involving the men's basketball program.

If Williams isn't asked to attend the COI hearing, it would further the notion that the Tar Heels coach and his program won't be hit with significant sanctions following a lengthy academic fraud investigation at the school."

Roy says he is hopeful the Infraction meeting is very soon. The title of the article is "Roy Williams not asked to attend NCAA hearing on UNC probe."

So when an insider like Goodman writes this article, I took it that he was implying that these are more signs UNC is likely to skate. It sounds like Goodman is implying and Roy is expecting that if Roy was going to be asked to be at the hearing that he would know that by now. You're right the article doesn't say that. And you're right the article does not appear to break any actual news.

Goodman is not usually a click-bait article type of guy. I assume he and Roy know more about what is likely than I do. So maybe when they report something it means more than meets the eye.

Obviously I hope UNC gets slammed because they absolutely deserve it. But it sounds to me like Roy is already telling recruits that is not likely to happen. And I think Roy is probably right, as disgusting as it is.

(Of course I also thought Duke would not cover yesterday's spread at Notre Dame. And I thought Duke didn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of taking the money line after going down 14-0 in 5 minutes and losing DeVon Edwards for the year. So I'd love to be wrong as hell again.)

[plimnko]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article103687037.html.

[Indoor66]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article103687037.html.

Please do not post naked links. Please describe, even briefly, what it is about and why it is worth reading. Click Bait is not very desirable.

[jwillfan]

Please do not post naked links. Please describe, even briefly, what it is about and why it is worth reading. Click Bait is not very desirable.

From the page:

Jay Smith, UNC-Chapel Hill history professor and outspoken critic of how UNC has handled the academic-athletic scandal
Sep 23, 2016
VIDEO: Smith talks about the effectiveness of dozens of reforms UNC has introduced in the wake of the scandal and his reform group's unsuccessful efforts to obtain data from UNC officials to track the academics of special-admit athletes.

[sammy3469]

More word leaking out that UNC will probably skate, along with the usual pity-party quotes by ol Roy...

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/17621622/roy-williams-not-asked-attend-ncaa-hearing-north-carolina-tar-heels-probe

This is sort of a total non-story since enforcement has 60 days to respond to UNC's August 1 response which hasn't expired yet. The COI will also probably want to go to the AMA panel and get a bunch of UNC's jurisdictional and procedural issues ironed out before the hearing (that is if the COI doesn't feel comfortable doing so themselves). So I'm not surprised a hearing date hasn't been set. UNC threw a bunch of roadbumps in the road that will push the hearing date out at least a little.

I do find it funny that Roy was even asked about attending. That implies Goodman heard something about MBB having to attend the meeting which would put them directly in the cross-hair of the NCAA (I also doubt the COI asks every UNC sport coach to be in attendance since it would be a circus unto itself).

[richardjackson199]

If you go back now and read UNC's statement on self-reporting men's soccer recruiting violations and women's basketball improper academic assistance violations, it's really laughable. UNC makes these silly statements that they are doing everything they can to avoid delay. Yet delay without distraction for the 2015 NCAA basketball NCAA runner-ups is exactly what they facilitated with this move. They acknowledge reporting these violations because it requires an Amended Notice of Allegations. So how in God's name does reporting more violations yield a softer Amended Notice removing mention of the big money sports. This is especially ludicrous when the evidence points to these phony classes being created for and abused by plenty of players in men's basketball and football. The statements about UNC's desire to be forthcoming and work with the NCAA are such a joke looking back.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-reports-new-information-to-ncaa/

Cynically, it looks like the NCAA saying 'well if UNC is good, it's good for the NCAA.' If UNC is good, people watch, and more money for the NCAA. If UNC skates, that would be one interpretation.

So let's speak a language the NCAA understands - Money talks.

Hey NCAA, can we get a 6th year for DeVon Edwards? If Duke football is good it's good for the NCAA. Remember the TV ratings for the Duke Texas A&M game on New Year's Eve? Has every Duke bowl game been uber exciting and good for TV ratings? Do people like to watch DeVon Edwards return kickoffs 99 yards, make pick 6's, sack quarterbacks, and shock football powerhouse schools on national TV? Would that be good for the NCAA?

Hell - that approach might just work. But thankfully Duke does not operate that way. We win with integrity, we will continue to win with integrity, and that is what Cutcliffe, K, and Duke are all about. We'll keep it that way, and I hope we never sell out our integrity, even if it sometimes means having fewer superstars on the field. We'll just go next man up, and we will continue to get it done.

[PackMan97]

Good news or bad news? As the old Chineses curse goes...may you live in interesting times.

--------------------

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 55m55 minutes ago
UNC has received the NCAA's response to the response to the NOA. Should be posted on UNC site momentarily, school spokesman says.

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 52m52 minutes ago
UNC's appearance before Committee on Infractions will be Oct. 28 in Indianapolis. Starts at 8 am.

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 43m43 minutes ago
I'm reading this as I sit on a plane. This isn't a usual COI hearing but a procedural hearing about merits of UNC's response on Aug. 1.

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 43m43 minutes ago
This will not decide penalties or whether violations occurred. And now I take off for Tallahassee ...

[richardjackson199]

Yep - I posted this in the wrong thread...

UNC, NCAA have Procedural Hearing Oct. 28
Through the story on the link, you can access a PDF of NCAA's letter to UNC (it's short enough to read)

Just a Procedural Meeting to discuss if NCAA COI has jurisdiction, statute of limitations, finality from 2012 infractions case, fairness (ha!), and whether NCAA COI can include the Wainstein report (they call it the Cadwalader report).

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/c...105170416.html

Because this meeting is just procedural is why NCAA says they didn't invite too many people from UNC. They do invite Chancellor Folt, Athletic Director Bubba, Lawyers, etc.

[richardjackson199]

I'm not sure why the link I posted above is not working. Here it is again:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article105170416.html

Nothing really new in the AP release. It just comments on the timeline from here: "The process would eventually lead to a hearing with an infractions committee panel to discuss the charges with a ruling coming weeks to months afterward. That timeline is certain to carry the case into 2017, approaching seven years since NCAA investigators first arrived on campus in the football case."

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17678885/ncaa-sets-oct-28-hearing-date-north-carolina-tar-heels-academic-case

[chrishoke]

Which means that the COI can dismiss the case on procedural grounds without ever holding a hearing on the merits.

[sammy3469]

Which means that the COI can dismiss the case on procedural grounds without ever holding a hearing on the merits.

They put some of the heavy hitters on the COI panel though. Sankey is the de-facto NCAA chairman in waiting (he's also the Chief Hearing Officer which is all you really need to know about how seriously the NCAA is taking this COI panel). Pilgrim is well-known lawyer. Then you have a government guy in Parkinson and an ex-judge in Gonzales.

From the outside, it doesn't look like the NCAA wants to mess this up one way or the other.

[OldPhiKap]

As a lawyer, I'll say -- there's no such thing as "just a procedural hearing."

[Indoor66]

As a lawyer, I'll say -- there's no such thing as "just a procedural hearing."

Yeah. Just check Pennoyer v Neff! :D:cool:

[MarkD83]

Which means that the COI can dismiss the case on procedural grounds without ever holding a hearing on the merits.

Who gets to decide what is allowed or not. The COI or UNC and the rest of the NCAA. This smells like a way for the NCAA to let unc skate and try to save face. Just like the ruling by the accreditation board.

[richardjackson199]

This N & O Piece by Dan Kane, Jane Stancill, and Andrew Carter gets some interpretation from Jan Boxill's lawyer Roden.

Kane, Stancill, and Carter point out, "The [NCAA] letter sheds little light on whether or when the NCAA would schedule an infractions hearing on the facts of the case."

Predicting the outcome is impossible at this point, Roden said Friday. "This is not an everyday occurrence,” he said of the UNC case. “Usually there’s a small category of evidence. This is a whole bunch of stuff. ... That’s just one of the reasons why this case is different from their typical ones.”

Roden pointed out that witnesses interviewed by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein were not recorded and some did not have an attorney present.

In reference to the precedural and jurisdictional questions, Roden said, “Those are big, complicated legal questions. Apparently they want to get that out of the way or just establish the ground rules.”

Roden likened the hearing to a pre-trial conference with a judge. The UNC case is many faceted and so are the jurisdictional questions, he said. “It’s not a minor thing, and they appear to be taking it seriously,” he said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article105170416.html

[Indoor66]

This N & O Piece by Dan Kane, Jane Stancill, and Andrew Carter gets some interpretation from Jan Boxill's lawyer Roden.

Kane, Stancill, and Carter point out, "The [NCAA] letter sheds little light on whether or when the NCAA would schedule an infractions hearing on the facts of the case."

Predicting the outcome is impossible at this point, Roden said Friday. "This is not an everyday occurrence,” he said of the UNC case. “Usually there’s a small category of evidence. This is a whole bunch of stuff. ... That’s just one of the reasons why this case is different from their typical ones.”

Roden pointed out that witnesses interviewed by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein were not recorded and some did not have an attorney present.

In reference to the precedural and jurisdictional questions, Roden said, “Those are big, complicated legal questions. Apparently they want to get that out of the way or just establish the ground rules.”

Roden likened the hearing to a pre-trial conference with a judge. The UNC case is many faceted and so are the jurisdictional questions, he said. “It’s not a minor thing, and they appear to be taking it seriously,” he said.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article105170416.html

I can hear it now:

unCHEAT: But that Wainstrom interview did not follow NCAA guidelines

NCAA: But you adopted and approved the report

unCHEAT: But you don't have authority to approve of or disapprove class content

NCAA: But you admitted academic fraud to SACS.

etc, etc, etc

[richardjackson199]

Some more interpretation in this article:

"Stu Brown, an Atlanta-based attorney who has worked with schools on compliance issues, said he expected the procedural hearing and ruling might add another four to six weeks to the process. The case likely would resume a typical course with another hearing on the merits of the charges, with the panel issuing a ruling weeks to months afterward.

Brown said UNC could potentially "pare down the record" of the case against it if successful in some of its claims.

"It's almost a no-lose opportunity for Carolina," Brown said. "If Carolina wins on this procedural stuff and gets some of those allegations or evidence excluded, that's a win for Carolina. If nothing gets excluded ... they're no worse off in terms of what they face in the Notice of Allegations."

In its August response, UNC challenged the NCAA's jurisdiction to pursue charges in a case centered on problems in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department. It argued that its accreditation agency -- which sanctioned the school with a year of probation that expired in June -- was the proper authority to handle the matter.

The school's procedural arguments cited an expired four-year statute of limitations. It stated a March 2012 ruling that included sanctions against the football program should have precluded later charges, because some of the academic issues were examined during that first probe starting in fall 2011.

The NCAA enforcement staff cited Wainstein's report in its Notice of Allegations outlining charges in April. But UNC's response sought to block its usage because the inquiry was "not conducted in a manner consistent with NCAA investigation protocols" by lacking recordings of interviews, failing to notify witnesses of a right to counsel, and failing to notify them that the purpose was to determine if there were NCAA violations.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17678885/ncaa-sets-oct-28-hearing-date-north-carolina-tar-heels-academic-case

[OldPhiKap]

I can hear it now:

unCHEAT: But that Wainstrom interview did not follow NCAA guidelines

NCAA: But you adopted and approved the report

unCHEAT: But you don't have authority to approve of or disapprove class content

NCAA: But you admitted academic fraud to SACS.

etc, etc, etc


There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

-- Joseph Heller

[NSDukeFan]

Would it be too much to ask that the NCAA is taking its time because it has never before seen this kind of scandal and has never before given two death penalties? :)

[JasonEvans]

I changed the title of this thread to reflect the most recent developments and the movement away from commentary on Dan Kane's article.

-Jason "I fear this procedural hearing will give the NCAA even more opportunity to edge away from being able to punish UNC. Sigh..." Evans

[madscavenger]

A few comments:

a)

Andrew Carter ‏@_andrewcarter 43m43 minutes ago
This will not decide penalties or whether violations occurred. And now I take off for Tallahassee ...


If the ANOA was not being objected to by the appropriate deadline, violations have as per procedure occurred. Involved here, is the COI. They don't determine whether violations occurred, they assess penalties. They are two different groups of people, with no overlap, as i understand it. It was intended that they be independent of each other.

b)

Who gets to decide what is allowed or not. The COI or UNC and the rest of the NCAA. This smells like a way for the NCAA to let UNC skate and try to save face. Just like the ruling by the accreditation board.

My recollection: The COI can decide to use anything the NCAA utilized in arriving at the NOA (and ANOA). However, they can also take into consideration information from sources other than what was specifically used to conclude that violations outlined in the ANOA had occurred.

c) This is not a criminal or civil case. It is about the violation of NCAA rules, which as a condition of membership in the NCAA, require acceptance. The greater issue as to whether the NCAA has or has not jurisdiction should not be at issue here. If UNC wants to bring suit on that matter, it would need to be brought separately in a different venue. Maybe the NCAA will put that to them. i don't think discovery is something UNC, the Board of Trustees or the Board of Governors want to face. Insight on matters unrelated can open pursuit on all sorts of things, to say the least, problematic. In any case, the NCAA could use this "procedural meeting" to reiterate their authority publicly and that they intend to proceed accordingly. The tact being pursued by UNC is that the NCAA has no jurisdiction, so no violations have occurred, and therefore the COI cannot act. If the NCAA accepts this, their regulations become meaningless. They acknowledge their impotence and have no credible reason to exist.


Note: i am not a lawyer, nor is my memory infallible (you know who you are). If i've got something wrong, please set it straight.

[swood1000]

The NCAA enforcement staff cited Wainstein's report in its Notice of Allegations outlining charges in April. But UNC's response sought to block its usage because the inquiry was "not conducted in a manner consistent with NCAA investigation protocols" by lacking recordings of interviews, failing to notify witnesses of a right to counsel, and failing to notify them that the purpose was to determine if there were NCAA violations.
In the first place, UNC hired and controlled Wainstein. If they wanted these things to be done it was in their power to require that they be done. How can they come in later and complain that they were not done? Second, it looks like these requirements are there for the protection of the people interviewed, not for the protection of UNC. Third, this is not a criminal prosecution and I am not aware of any "exclusionary rule" requiring evidence to be excluded if certain procedures were not followed. And even if there were, the reason for excluding evidence is in part to prevent the prosecutor from benefiting from his own misdeeds but any misdeeds here were committed by a party controlled by UNC. It's their own fault. The COI should just make a determination as to whether it believes that this evidence is reliable.


Involved here, is the COI. They don't determine whether violations occurred, they assess penalties. They are two different groups of people, with no overlap, as i understand it. It was intended that they be independent of each other.
Don't follow when you say that the COI doesn't determine whether violations occurred. Who does?

[swood1000]

Third, this is not a criminal prosecution and I am not aware of any "exclusionary rule" requiring evidence to be excluded if certain procedures were not followed.

The COI Internal Operating Procedures (http://www.ncaa.org/division-i-committee-infractions-operating-procedures) (IOP) do say that "The COI may exclude information submitted in violation of the IOPs." But it's not mandatory and IOPs were not violated here.

[sammy3469]

In the first place, UNC hired and controlled Wainstein. If they wanted these things to be done it was in their power to require that they be done. How can they come in later and complain that they were not done? Second, it looks like these requirements are there for the protection of the people interviewed, not for the protection of UNC. Third, this is not a criminal prosecution and I am not aware of any "exclusionary rule" requiring evidence to be excluded if certain procedures were not followed. And even if there were, the reason for excluding evidence is in part to prevent the prosecutor from benefiting from his own misdeeds but any misdeeds here were committed by a party controlled by UNC. It's their own fault. The COI should just make a determination as to whether it believes that this evidence is reliable.


Don't follow when you say that the COI doesn't determine whether violations occurred. Who does?

UNC's ANOA response says the staff has agreed to take out the Crowder and Nyang'oro's statements in the Waintstein report from the record. Why the staff agreed to this, I haven't a clue since I don't think there is anything in their rules that says they had to.

This brings up 2 points:
1. Enforcement believes their case is so ironclad, they don't need those statements and wanted Crowder/Nyang'oro rung up by the COI.
2. UNC bringing this up is just stonewalling since enforcement has already agreed with them on their point.

FWIW, the way I read the rules is the NCAA can use anything said to them by anybody if they don't cite that particular individual for NCAA violations. Once they wanted to cite Crowder/Nyang'oro/Boxill they have to tell them it's for potential violations. And yes, I realize Wainstein was the one interviewing, but I don't think enforcement wants to even think about blowing the case over something relatively minor...better to be safe than sorry as they have a history of the having this litigated against them. I also believe this is the reason none of the coaches/ADs were cited as I'm guessing there are probably similar fact patterns involved, but they need some of that testimony especially from Baddour to show LOIC.

In any case, the crux of this hearing is on whether these are solely academic issues and if the NCAA has already ruled.

[porcophile]

Sure sounds iike it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article114280058.html

Some will recall that before Kevin Guskiewicz became dean, he was implicated in an eligibility scam run through the Department of Exercise and Sports Science, where he was director of the graduate studies program. To be sure, at least he was smart enough to figure out that he'd made a mistake by going along with it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article11845640.html

[lotusland]

I can't get to upset about student athletes being given priority for entrance in graduate school especially if the class actually meets and has a legitimate curriculum. I don't think allowing athletes to get an education is objectionable even if they don't earn a degree.

[porcophile]

I can't get to upset about student athletes being given priority for entrance in graduate school especially if the class actually meets and has a legitimate curriculum. I don't think allowing athletes to get an education is objectionable even if they don't earn a degree.
But this guy never went to class, and never intended to. Yet he was admitted outside the usual admissions procedures. It was an eligibility scam, plain and simple, and if Guskiewicz didn't know it, he should have. In my opinion, that should have disqualified him from being made Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, but there are many more egregious examples of tainted people being appointed or reappointed to responsible positions at UNC.

[killerleft]

But this guy never went to class, and never intended to. Yet he was admitted outside the usual admissions procedures. It was an eligibility scam, plain and simple, and if Guskiewicz didn't know it, he should have. In my opinion, that should have disqualified him from being made Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, but there are many more egregious examples of tainted people being appointed or reappointed to responsible positions at UNC.

Don't forget the one hired away from unc by Duke. I forget the name or I'd give a link.

[Skitzle]

Sure sounds iike it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article114280058.html

Some will recall that before Kevin Guskiewicz became dean, he was implicated in an eligibility scam run through the Department of Exercise and Sports Science, where he was director of the graduate studies program. To be sure, at least he was smart enough to figure out that he'd made a mistake by going along with it:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article11845640.html

Money quotes from article 1:

"Smith said the argument about strategic planning didn’t make sense to him. “For administrators to pay any attention at all to the creation or scheduling of an individual course is exceptional,” he said. “It’s unique in my experience.”"

Especially for a school that didnt pay attention to 100s of classes that never met.

[Stray Gator]

This might make the UNC faithful a little nervous:

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/former-notre-dame-student-trainer-acted-unethically-committed-academic-misconduct?sf43132124=1

"Former Notre Dame student trainer acted unethically, committed academic misconduct"

"A former University of Notre Dame student athletic trainer violated NCAA ethical conduct rules when she committed academic misconduct for two football student-athletes and provided six other football student-athletes with impermissible academic extra benefits, according to a Division I Committee on Infractions panel. One additional football student-athlete committed academic misconduct on his own."

Penalties include "vacation of all records in which student-athletes participated while ineligible during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 football seasons."

[Papa John]

In any event... The NCAA has ordered ND football to vacate wins from its 2012 and 2013 seasons due to an academic incident affecting a handful of player. Logic thus dictates that we should see them request that UNC-CH vacate/forfeit literally hundreds of wins spanning most of their athletic programs. If not, then add ND to the list of very prominent NCAA members picking up pitchforks and torches when the decision is handed down... Grab your popcorn—this could be fun!

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

[Trinity_93]

...if this is what Notre Dame gets for self-reporting academic misconduct by eight players and one trainer over two years, the NCAA will have no choice but to nuke Chapel Hill from orbit:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

[Trinity_93]

So two other board members posted the Notre Dame news while I was posting my one-sentence reply. Wow.

[flagellaman]

Hell, yeah! Uh-huh, yeah, yeah! Hell, yeah!!

[dukelifer]

In any event... The NCAA has ordered ND football to vacate wins from its 2012 and 2013 seasons due to an academic incident affecting a handful of player. Logic thus dictates that we should see them request that UNC-CH vacate/forfeit literally hundreds of wins spanning most of their athletic programs. If not, then add ND to the list of very prominent NCAA members picking up pitchforks and torches when the decision is handed down... Grab your popcorn—this could be fun!

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

Well if they don't - they have some splaining to do. My guess is that Women's bball gets nuked- everything else survives.

[dukebluesincebirth]

...if this is what Notre Dame gets for self-reporting academic misconduct by eight players and one trainer over two years, the NCAA will have no choice but to nuke Chapel Hill from orbit:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

I had the same thought and I want to believe it...but I just can't! It can't really happen, can it???!!!

[BD80]

...if this is what Notre Dame gets for self-reporting academic misconduct by eight players and one trainer over two years, the NCAA will have no choice but to nuke Chapel Hill from orbit:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

tar heels are laughing at this outcome: "See what you get for being honest? Self-report this!"

On a small scale, it's cheating. On a much larger scale, it's just SOP.

[moonpie23]

...if this is what Notre Dame gets for self-reporting academic misconduct by eight players and one trainer over two years, the NCAA will have no choice but to nuke Chapel Hill from orbit:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

it's the only way to be sure....

[UrinalCake]

CHeat fans and officials will point to the involvement of a staff member of the athletic department as being the key difference between ND's case and theirs. They will argue that since no athletics people were involved at their school or had any knowledge of the cheating, athletics cannot be punished. CHeat officials believe that academic counselors, Debby Crowder, Julius Nyan'goro, and Jan Boxhill are all on the academic side, and that Wayne Walden is a figment of everyone's imagination.

The NCAA will argue that it cannot determine academic fraud, it is up to the member institutions to self-monitor and self-report, which ND did. Therefore, the NCAA can punish them. If UNC never self-reports anything, which it obviously won't, then the NCAA has no jurisdiction.

I am not claiming to agree with any of this, just relaying what the two sides have been spouting off all along.

[plimnko]

i want to hear more "your argument has no merit" responses from the ncaa to the cheats' bs.

[Indoor66]

Maybe distinction without difference is appropriate here.

[CameronBornAndBred]

...if this is what Notre Dame gets for self-reporting academic misconduct by eight players and one trainer over two years, the NCAA will have no choice but to nuke Chapel Hill from orbit:

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons


So two other board members posted the Notre Dame news while I was posting my one-sentence reply. Wow.

For what it's worth, I liked your imagery the best.
Major Tom to ground control...

[OldPhiKap]

In any event... The NCAA has ordered ND football to vacate wins from its 2012 and 2013 seasons due to an academic incident affecting a handful of player. Logic thus dictates that we should see them request that UNC-CH vacate/forfeit literally hundreds of wins spanning most of their athletic programs. If not, then add ND to the list of very prominent NCAA members picking up pitchforks and torches when the decision is handed down... Grab your popcorn—this could be fun!

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

What is this NCAA "logic" of which you speak?

I hope they hammer the slimy cretins until the damn nail breaks. Believe it when I see it though.

[Pghdukie]

What is this NCAA "logic" of which you speak?

I hope they hammer the slimy cretins until the damn nail breaks. Believe it when I see it though.

It seems the NCAA is getting pushed pretty hard into the perverbial corner. ND, Louisville, SLIME BALLS down the road, Etc - and they only punish Cleveland St ? When will NCAA have the nads to finally lower the gauntlet ?

[Indoor66]

Be patient, Grasshopper.

[MarkD83]

Be patient, Grasshopper.

We have all been waiting for hell to freeze over....or is that what the ncaa plans to do

[swood1000]

In any event... The NCAA has ordered ND football to vacate wins from its 2012 and 2013 seasons due to an academic incident affecting a handful of player. Logic thus dictates that we should see them request that UNC-CH vacate/forfeit literally hundreds of wins spanning most of their athletic programs. If not, then add ND to the list of very prominent NCAA members picking up pitchforks and torches when the decision is handed down... Grab your popcorn—this could be fun!

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/18113811/ncaa-orders-notre-dame-fighting-irish-vacate-wins-2012-2013-seasons

ND had to vacate wins because of extra benefits. Unfortunately, the only allegation of extra benefits against UNC concerned Boxill and WBB. No such allegations against MBB. The only allegation touching MBB was the Lack of Institutional Control, for which the penalty guidelines specify
 
• 2 - 4 year postseason ban
• fine of $5,000 plus 3 to 5% of the budget for the sport program (not clear if the budgets of all programs affected would be added up)
• 25 to 50% scholarship reduction of involved sports programs
• recruiting visit restrictions
• 6 to 10 years probation


Other potential penalties are:
 

• Prohibition against specified competition in the sport during the regular season;

• Requirement that the institution relinquish its voting privilege in the Association for a prescribed period;

• Recommendation that the institution’s membership in the Association be suspended or terminated pursuant to Constitution 3.2.5;

• Public reprimand and censure;

• Prohibition against television appearances of the institution in the sport in which the violation occurred. The penalty shall specify that the institution may not enter into any contracts or agreements for such appearances until the institution has been restored to full privileges of membership. The Board of Directors is authorized to permit a closed-circuit telecast, limited to the campus of the opponent of the ineligible institution, provided no rights fee is to be paid to the ineligible institution;

• Publicizing institutions on probation on the NCAA website, in appropriate NCAA publications and in NCAA championship game programs of the involved sports;

[rasputin]

We have all been waiting for hell to freeze over...or is that what the ncaa plans to do

The Cubs already won the World Series.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

The Cubs already won the World Series.
Yes. And taken together with other recent occurrences, it would seem Armageddon may be upon us.

[Tom B.]

ND had to vacate wins because of extra benefits. Unfortunately, the only allegation of extra benefits against UNC concerned Boxill and WBB. No such allegations against MBB. The only allegation touching MBB was the Lack of Institutional Control, for which the penalty guidelines specify
 
• 2 - 4 year postseason ban
• fine of $5,000 plus 3 to 5% of the budget for the sport program (not clear if the budgets of all programs affected would be added up)
• 25 to 50% scholarship reduction of involved sports programs
• recruiting visit restrictions
• 6 to 10 years probation



Much as I'd love to see some banners come down, even if that's not in the cards, the NCAA could (if it wants to) put UNC's MBB program in the hurt locker for several years going forward with the penalties that are available to it.

Of course, then we'll have to listen to Vitale and Bilas carry on about how it's "punishing kids who weren't there when the bad stuff happened and aren't guilty of anything." Well, so what. It's not like the current players didn't know about the cloud hanging over UNC when they signed. And the NCAA can let them transfer and be immediately eligible to play elsewhere without having to sit a year.

[CarmenWallaceWade]

Nothing like a UNC loss followed by more bad press.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article118196463.html

[devildeac]

Anyone with any idea about when the next deadline/response time is for the cheaters and/or the ncaa? I'm dazed and confused at this point about whose move it is next. :confused::o

[BD80]

Nothing like a UNC loss followed by more bad press.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article118196463.html

“It would obviously be a problem if the UNC basketball program's academic coordinator was involved in the paper classes scheme,” said John Shelton Reed, a retired sociology professor at UNC best known for his research into Southern culture. “I'm surprised that the athletic department isn't downright eager to answer questions and clear things up."



Yeah. Me too. Shocked.

[Indoor66]

“It would obviously be a problem if the UNC basketball program's academic coordinator was involved in the paper classes scheme,” said John Shelton Reed, a retired sociology professor at UNC best known for his research into Southern culture. “I'm surprised that the athletic department isn't downright eager to answer questions and clear things up."



Yeah. Me too. Shocked.

Maybe the silence speaks louder than words.

[PackMan97]

They are cheaters born and cheaters bred.

[DukePA]

They are cheaters born and cheaters bred.

And when they die, they'll be cheater dead.

[OldPhiKap]

Bump.

What's the next date or thing that we are waiting on? A ruling on the result of the procedural hearing? And where does it go from there?

[JasonEvans]

What's the next date or thing that we are waiting on?

Hell freezing over...

Dan Kane did a short phone interview with WFAE (Charlotte NPR affiliate) a couple weeks ago. You can listen to it here (http://wfae.org/post/making-murderer-attorney-jerry-buting-reflects-case-unc-ncaa-odds-academic-scandal) (it is halfway down the page). He says the N&O has asked (FOI request) UNC for any written documents related to the Procedural Hearing that happened a month or so ago, like if the NCAA sends UNC a decision from that hearing. Thus far, UNC hasn't turned over anything. At this point, he says we don't even know when or if the Committee On Infractions will have a final hearing. But, he opines that we are probably at the point where we get some final decision in a matter of months, not years, though he adds that "months" likely means that something may happen in the summer of 2017.

-Jason "this is just maddening" Evans

P.S. - The way the host of that segment cuts Dan off at the end is just horrible. I am guessing they had a "hard break" they had to hit, but it was awful.

[ricks68]

Bump.

What's the next date or thing that we are waiting on? A ruling on the result of the procedural hearing? And where does it go from there?

Not before UNCheaters finish another basketball season, obviously. Then they will wait until some kind of news like a revolution in the US or war with Russia or China to divert attention from their cowardly self-serving decision to let them skate.

ricks

[richardjackson199]

UNC clearly has another very good team capable of competing for a National Championship.

Fitting punishment for years of blatant cheating and improper benefits would be a postseason ban similar to what Louisville had last year (along with vacating a few past natties). But having Carolina in the tourney competing for another natty will be good for ratings and more money in the NCAA's pocket. So it's quite convenient that any punishments have likely been delayed to after the conclusion of this season (again - sound familiar from last year?).

The NCAA's complicity in this corruption due to dollars is shameful. The NCAA being in charge of enforcement and punishment is a conflict of interest. They have too much to gain or lose financially in today's big money sports world. They are showing that all that matters is dollars. The message is clear - it pays to cheat, it pays to win, don't get caught, and if you get caught red-handed just delay and deny. It's sad.

I guess we'll just have to knock UNC out with another heart-breaking dagger at the end of the game.

[moonpie23]

I guess we'll just have to knock UNC out with another heart-breaking dagger at the end of the game.

i'l have 82-50, please....

[devildeac]

i'l have 82-50, please...

I'll have what he's sipping. Much, much easier on the blood pressure.

[CameronBornAndBred]

But having Carolina in the tourney competing for another natty will be good for ratings and more money in the NCAA's pocket. So it's quite convenient that any punishments have likely been delayed to after the conclusion of this season (again - sound familiar from last year?).

I've heard this argument since day one, and I don't buy it. If Carolina isn't in the tourney, the NCAA won't miss one dime. (Carolina will miss a lot of them, but boo hoo.)
Carolina could (and has) lost in the first round. The tourney won't fold up, or make less money. The same amount of seats will be sold, the same tv revenue will be brought in.

[UrinalCake]

^ agree with that. The year UNC was in the NIT, March Madness still happened and the same amount of people watched. The years that Kansas, Kentucky, and yes even Duke lose early, the tournament still goes on. Most of the money comes from gigantic TV contracts which are set years in advance over a long term and not subject to year-to-year variations. The only people hurt financially when UNC isn't in the tournament are people affiliated with UNC.

[richardjackson199]

March Madness will always happen and people will always watch. The first 2 weekends of March Madness (esp. the first) will always be a huge hit with plenty of drama.

I'm not a business guy. But imagine the ratings of a Final Four of Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA (or Kansas)? With a championship game of Duke vs. Kentucky or Duke vs North Carolina? This year it could happen. How much do you think decent seats to those games will cost?

Compare ratings and viewers to those games vs. a Final Four of say Purdue, Xavier, Creighton, and St. Mary's (or Baylor - lots of other teams you could substitute here). A Final Four like this probably won't happen this year, but I'd think somebody would care that the blue-blood Final Four would have many, many more viewers.

Maybe you're right - but I have a tough time believing it just doesn't matter from a financial standpoint. People like watching blue bloods play epic games. Money talks.

Apparently, people also like betting on blue bloods playing in Epic games:

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18313153/college-basketball-north-carolina-kentucky-game-generates-big-betting-interest-las-vegas-sportsbooks

[CameronBornAndBred]

March Madness will always happen and people will always watch. The first 2 weekends of March Madness (esp. the first) will always be a huge hit with plenty of drama. I'm not a business guy. But imagine the ratings of a Final Four of Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA (or Kansas)? With a championship game of Duke vs. Kentucky or Duke vs North Carolina? This year it could happen. How much do you think decent seats to those games will cost? Compare ratings and viewers to those games vs. a Final Four of say Purdue, Xavier, Creighton, and St. Mary's (or Baylor - lots of other teams you could substitute here). That latter won't happen, but I'd think somebody would care that the former would have many, many more viewers. Maybe you're right - but I have a tough time believing it just doesn't matter from a financial standpoint. Money talks.

Tickets have already been sold, the TV deals have already been signed. Carolina not being there would make a lick of difference.

[OldPhiKap]

The NCAA has hit USC and Notre Dame football, both of which are much bigger than UNC sports.

If UNC skates, it will be because they have really good lawyers -- not because the NCAA is afraid of them.

[kmspeaks]

March Madness will always happen and people will always watch. The first 2 weekends of March Madness (esp. the first) will always be a huge hit with plenty of drama.

I'm not a business guy. But imagine the ratings of a Final Four of Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA (or Kansas)? With a championship game of Duke vs. Kentucky or Duke vs North Carolina? This year it could happen. How much do you think decent seats to those games will cost?

Compare ratings and viewers to those games vs. a Final Four of say Purdue, Xavier, Creighton, and St. Mary's (or Baylor - lots of other teams you could substitute here). A Final Four like this probably won't happen this year, but I'd think somebody would care that the blue-blood Final Four would have many, many more viewers.

Maybe you're right - but I have a tough time believing it just doesn't matter from a financial standpoint. People like watching blue bloods play epic games. Money talks.

Apparently, people also like betting on blue bloods playing in Epic games:

http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/18313153/college-basketball-north-carolina-kentucky-game-generates-big-betting-interest-las-vegas-sportsbooks

Just go with Duke, Kentucky, UCLA, and Kansas...problem solved. Plus as CB&B pointed out the tickets have already been sold. What you're talking about would be the secondary market and the NCAA isn't seeing a dime of that money.

[BD80]

Just go with Duke, Kentucky, UCLA, and Kansas...problem solved. Plus as CB&B pointed out the tickets have already been sold. What you're talking about would be the secondary market and the NCAA isn't seeing a dime of that money.

Ratings influence future contracts. NCAA does care about ratings.

[sagegrouse]

Ratings influence future contracts. NCAA does care about ratings.

I think UNC's only affect on TV contracts would be the ACC contracts. I would hazard a guess that March Madness is immune from influence by the presence or absence of a single team.

[hudlow]

i'l have 82-50, please...

The 75-58 is not bad either...

[kmspeaks]

Ratings influence future contracts. NCAA does care about ratings.

True, but I find it hard to believe that replacing any of those four teams with North Carolina would make such a huge difference in ratings that it would change the value of a contract. One or two years of NCAA tournaments without North Carolina would hardly be a blip on the radar as far as $$$ value to the NCAA. There may be several reasons why the NCAA ends up not punishing uNC, but i don't believe "they would lose money on the NCAA Tournament" is a valid one, nor do I think it would be one used internally by the COI.

[devildeac]

True, but I find it hard to believe that replacing any of those four teams with North Carolina would make such a huge difference in ratings that it would change the value of a contract. One or two decades of NCAA tournaments without North Carolina would hardly be a blip on the radar as far as $$$ value to the NCAA. There may be several reasons why the NCAA ends up not punishing uNC, but i don't believe "they would lose money on the NCAA Tournament" is a valid one, nor do I think it would be one used internally by the COI.

Clarification. ;)

[kmspeaks]

Clarification. ;)

From your lips to the basketball gods' ears.

[TexHawk]

I'm not a business guy. But imagine the ratings of a Final Four of Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, and UCLA (or Kansas)? With a championship game of Duke vs. Kentucky or Duke vs North Carolina? This year it could happen. How much do you think decent seats to those games will cost?

Compare ratings and viewers to those games vs. a Final Four of say Purdue, Xavier, Creighton, and St. Mary's (or Baylor - lots of other teams you could substitute here). A Final Four like this probably won't happen this year, but I'd think somebody would care that the blue-blood Final Four would have many, many more viewers.


KU, UCLA, and UNC all played in the same F4 in 2008 as #1 seeds. The other entrant was #1 seed Memphis with Calipari and Derrick Rose, not exactly St Mary's. It got the 5th-worst F4 TV ratings of the last 30 years (http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/ncaa-final-four-ratings-history-most-watched-games-cbs-tbs-nbc/). Only 2003 (Syracuse), 2004 (UCONN), 2006 (Florida), and 2009 (UNC) were worse. ** No 2016 numbers in that article.

[MarkD83]

That would mean UNC would have 3 less NCAA championships...significantly fewer ACC championships and they may not be considered a blue blood.

Imagine instead that NC State during that same period of time picked up the UNC recruits and the championships that went with them (sorry Pack fans if this is a painful thought)...NC State would fill in for UNC as a "blue blood" and the ACC and NCAA would not care either way. There would still be a great regional rivalry that translates to a National audience.

[Pghdukie]

NCAA at it again. Rutgers football program being investigated for 7 possible violations of FAILURE TO MONITOR.