UNC-Cheat - NCAA's response to UNC on amended Notice of Allegations

[DU82]

The cheaters have released a redacted copy of the NCAA's response on amended Notice of Allegations.

http://media2.newsobserver.com/static/content/multimedia/interactive/uncscandal/pdf/unc-ncaa-response.pdf

My quick read indicates that the Committee on Infractions staff didn't take kindly to UNC's initial response. Boxhill in particular is hammered (and I'm only half-way through it.)

ETA: They've been redacting since September 19th, when the letter was sent by the NCAA.

[dudog84]

The cheaters have released a redacted copy of the NCAA's response on amended Notice of Allegations.

http://media2.newsobserver.com/static/content/multimedia/interactive/uncscandal/pdf/unc-ncaa-response.pdf

My quick read indicates that the Committee on Infractions staff didn't take kindly to UNC's initial response. Boxhill in particular is hammered (and I'm only half-way through it.)

ETA: They've been redacting since September 19th, when the letter was sent by the NCAA.

Only a quick skim, but so far my favorite parts are:

"This access provided student-athletes with advantages that other students simply did not have." Strong statement, so much for 'all the students could take the courses'.

When they list aggravating and mitigating factors, mitigating factors are listed as "None" with only one exception. I think they have aggravated the NCAA. We can hope.

[TruBlu]

Only a quick skim, but so far my favorite parts are:

"This access provided student-athletes with advantages that other students simply did not have." Strong statement, so much for 'all the students could take the courses'.

When they list aggravating and mitigating factors, mitigating factors are listed as "None" with only one exception. I think they have aggravated the NCAA. We can hope.

I know unc has aggravated the heck out of me.

Slam them, NCAA!!!!

[CameronBornAndBred]

“The new information provided, for the first time, a complete picture of the athletics department’s preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses and, in some cases, how it used those courses to retain NCAA academic eligibility for student-athletes,” the NCAA’s enforcement staff said. “This access provided student-athletes with advantages that other students simply did not have.”

From Dan Kane's article.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article110315307.html

[BD80]

From Dan Kane's article.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article110315307.html




So you're telling me there's a chance?

[PackMan97]

If you are looking for an indication that the COI is mad at UNC for their actions....the COI be mad.

[moonpie23]

stop it.....


unc's lawyers are bette than the ncaa's......

don't get my hopes up...


manalishi said to stop it...

[OldPhiKap]

So you're telling me there's a chance?

A little hope is a dangerous thing, my friend.

[BD80]

A little hope is a dangerous thing, my friend.

Or maybe Cleveland State should be digging REALLY deep bunkers?

[Tom B.]

From Dan Kane's article.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article110315307.html





So you're telling me there's a chance?

Well, if we're doing movie quotes...

Damn you, Dan Kane.

Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in.

I wish I could quit you.

[budwom]

nice of the NCAA to specifically include the unc Powerpoint slide which discloses that players don't have to go to class, don't have to stay awake, don't have to do anything basically.

IC is on lockdown, no mention at all.

Having read the NCAA response quickly, the emphasis seems to be that unc has lots of procedural objections (state of limitations, etc) but
no substantive ones. Their arguments are rejected on every count.

p.s. Amy Herman, now at Duke, mentioned quite a few times. I'm sorry that we hired her, frankly.

[dukebluesincebirth]

nice of the NCAA to specifically include the unc Powerpoint slide which discloses that players don't have to go to class, don't have to stay awake, don't have to do anything basically.

IC is on lockdown, no mention at all.

Having read the NCAA response quickly, the emphasis seems to be that unc has lots of procedural objections (state of limitations, etc) but
no substantive ones. Their arguments are rejected on every count.

p.s. Amy Herman, now at Duke, mentioned quite a few times. I'm sorry that we hired her, frankly.

If only that infamous Powerpoint would've included the bball coaches instead of only being presented to the fball coaches, we'd be sitting pretty right now. It seems to me they're still providing an out for men's bball. Will the NCAA do a sweeping punishment of the athletic dept, or will they use specific evidences to target and pinpoint certain sports? We shall see.

[MChambers]

If you are looking for an indication that the COI is mad at UNC for their actions...the COI be mad.

I'm no expert on NCAA disciplinary procedure, but it looks like this document is the work of the NCAA enforcement staff, not the COI. The COI will essentially be the judge.

[SCMatt33]

Imo, this merely resets things (in terms of predicting punishments) to where things stood when the ANOA was released. Nothing in that response seems to drag men's basketball back in other than their indirect inclusion as part of the disproportionate athlete enrollment.

[MarkD83]

I'm no expert on NCAA disciplinary procedure, but it looks like this document is the work of the NCAA enforcement staff, not the COI. The COI will essentially be the judge.

Isn't that equivalent to tainting the jury. Here read the W report and then decide whether it is relevant or not. My read is that unc does not want the coi to even look at the report. So is the coi really who makes the decision on Friday

[budwom]

Imo, this merely resets things (in terms of predicting punishments) to where things stood when the ANOA was released. Nothing in that response seems to drag men's basketball back in other than their indirect inclusion as part of the disproportionate athlete enrollment.

Wayne Walden's (?) name seems to appear several times, he of Roy's staff...

[BD80]

Wasn't there a point where unc agreed that the NCAA could accept the findings of the Wainstein report in lieu of conducting further inquiry along the same grounds?

[sagegrouse]

Wasn't there a point where unc agreed that the NCAA could accept the findings of the Wainstein report in lieu of conducting further inquiry along the same grounds?

I believe the NCAA investigators participated in the interviews for the Cadwalader (Wainstein) Report. They all agreed on the ground rules ahead of time. Now UNC is saying "no fair."

[Indoor66]

I believe the NCAA investigators participated in the interviews for the Cadwalader (Wainstein) Report. They all agreed on the ground rules ahead of time. Now UNC is saying "no fair."

That's UNC for you: It is unfair. I agreed to the ground rules before I knew the outcome.

[OldPhiKap]

That's UNC for you: It is unfair. I agreed to the ground rules before I knew the outcome.

"I will only accept the outcome of the NCAA sanction process if I win"

-- Carol Folt

[Tripping William]

"I will only accept the outcome of the NCAA sanction process if I win"

-- Carol Folt

You just couldn't keep us in suspense, huh?

[wsb3]

While still being of the camp that nothing will be done to UNC...

I have speculated that with their arrogant thumbing of their nose at the NCAA if there was a point where the NCAA might actually say, "Wait a dadgum minute."

Maybe that time has arrived.

If nothing else it keeps our wonderful rival in the news a little longer.

I missed this article on how Dean would have vacated the 2005 Championship. I apologize if it has been shared previously. Seriously does the writer not realize this all began on Dean's watch?

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article93548542.html

[BlueTeuf]

I'm as interested as the next person in UNC receiving a significant and lasting accounting, but I find myself rooting around - looking for ways to continue believing in a principled Dean Smith.

If I accept the conclusion that the malfeasance began during Smith's tenure, does it have to imply intentional design? Could Dean have been helping to create a genuine, relevant, educational opportunity/environment for his recruits (admittedly to his program's advantage) to have it delegitimized through lack of oversight and other influences that he failed to anticipate or check?

[OldPhiKap]

I'm as interested as the next person in UNC receiving a significant and lasting accounting, but I find myself rooting around - looking for ways to continue believing in a principled Dean Smith.

If I accept the conclusion that the malfeasance began during Smith's tenure, does it have to imply intentional design? Could Dean have been helping to create a genuine, relevant, educational opportunity/environment for his recruits (admittedly to his program's advantage) to have it delegitimized through lack of oversight and other influences that he failed to anticipate or check?

Maybe. But Dean was a control freak (as are most coaches, although Roy's appears to be situational). If Dean was concerned about compliance and having eligible players, I doubt anything slid by him.

Roy, we know, brought his own guy over (Wayne Walden) who jumped neck-deep into the mud right away it seems. Unless the whole thing really got rolling under Gut and Doh!, one might conclude that this was the institutional "Carolina Way" after K won his third NC and passed Dean's two NCs.

So, it is certainly possible that Dean didn't know. But I find it hard to believe.

[BlueTeuf]

If Dean was concerned about compliance and having eligible players, I doubt anything slid by him.

So, it is certainly possible that Dean didn't know. But I find it hard to believe.


Perhaps I should do research to answer my own question - but have the significant MBB enrollments observed under Dean's tenure been conclusively disparaged as illegitimate academic classes?

[PackMan97]

Perhaps I should do research to answer my own question - but have the significant MBB enrollments observed under Dean's tenure been conclusively disparaged as illegitimate academic classes?

No, because UNC has admitted no such thing. His enrollments have conclusively been proven to be abberant according to the Caldwater report...but UNC still considers them legitimate academic courses for the purposes of athletic eligibility and graduation.

[wsb3]

Perhaps I should do research to answer my own question - but have the significant MBB enrollments observed under Dean's tenure been conclusively disparaged as illegitimate academic classes?


You decide...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/index.html

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

[BlueTeuf]

You decide...


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

Thank you - had never read that - and find it quite compelling.

Respectfully,
BlueTeuf

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

You decide...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/index.html

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

So depressing that the first article was from over two years ago, and here we still are...

[nocilla]

I'm as interested as the next person in UNC receiving a significant and lasting accounting, but I find myself rooting around - looking for ways to continue believing in a principled Dean Smith.

If I accept the conclusion that the malfeasance began during Smith's tenure, does it have to imply intentional design? Could Dean have been helping to create a genuine, relevant, educational opportunity/environment for his recruits (admittedly to his program's advantage) to have it delegitimized through lack of oversight and other influences that he failed to anticipate or check?

I think it's possible that the high academic standards that Dean set were the cause of the whole thing. Maybe towards the end of his career it was getting harder to meet Dean's standards and shortcuts started to be made, possibly without him knowing. Then when he stepped down it ballooned into the widespread academic fraud that it became.

[OldPhiKap]

I think it's possible that the high academic standards that Dean set were the cause of the whole thing. Maybe towards the end of his career it was getting harder to meet Dean's standards and shortcuts started to be made, possibly without him knowing. Then when he stepped down it ballooned into the widespread academic fraud that it became.

It's also a possibility that it began more as a crutch for the football program, then bled over.

I do find it almost impossible to believe that Dean did not know every detail of his program though. He may well have thought that everyone does it, and that's the modern world, etcetera, but as multiple coaches have said -- all basketball coaches know the details of their players' academics. It's not like football where the head coach needs to (but cannot) track 60-80 players so that all gets delegated out. There's only 12 people to keep up with in hoops.

And in fairness, I will admit my bias against Dean because I had to suffer through his reign. So grain of salt as needed or appropriate I guess.

[PackMan97]

It's also a possibility that it began more as a crutch for the football program, then bled over.

no it's not.

Look at duke's ascent in the late 80s and early 90's it is VERY clear to see that this cheating was in response to Duke's success on the basketball court. I believe almost all of the early enrollments were Dean Smith basketball players. There is no question at all that this started with basketball, spread to football and eventually every sport at UNC wanted to use.

[OldPhiKap]

no it's not.

Look at duke's ascent in the late 80s and early 90's it is VERY clear to see that this cheating was in response to Duke's success on the basketball court. I believe almost all of the early enrollments were Dean Smith basketball players. There is no question at all that this started with basketball, spread to football and eventually every sport at UNC wanted to use.

Is there a chart or graph that shows the number of fake class participants per sport per year? It's been forever since I read the Wainstein Report.

I know it is easy for folks (and I count myself among them) who see the rise of Duke hoops, and the timing of the cheating, as cause and effect. That could also be the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo proptor hoc as well though. Would like to see some stats.

[alteran]

Is there a chart or graph that shows the number of fake class participants per sport per year? It's been forever since I read the Wainstein Report.

I know it is easy for folks (and I count myself among them) who see the rise of Duke hoops, and the timing of the cheating, as cause and effect. That could also be the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo proptor hoc as well though. Would like to see some stats.

I can't find it now, but I've seen it a dozen times.

We will never be able to legally link a cause and effect. What we do know is that the anomalous classes started in the very late 80s, and started with MBB players. Next the football program caught on (mid 90s, IIRC, and a few years later, WBB and everyone else jumped in).

Was the trigger Duke's MBB success? Totally a matter of conjecture.

But what's important to remember is that it did, in fact, happen, and was a massive violation of the letter and spirit of the rules.

[BLPOG]

nice of the NCAA to specifically include the unc Powerpoint slide which discloses that players don't have to go to class, don't have to stay awake, don't have to do anything basically.

IC is on lockdown, no mention at all.

Having read the NCAA response quickly, the emphasis seems to be that unc has lots of procedural objections (state of limitations, etc) but
no substantive ones. Their arguments are rejected on every count.

p.s. Amy Herman, now at Duke, mentioned quite a few times. I'm sorry that we hired her, frankly.

The last time Duke called to ask me for money I went on a ~30 minute rant about Herman (and Ashby - I know some people don't consider the letter all that important, but I do). No calls for over a year now.

[bob blue devil]

So depressing that the first article was from over two years ago, and here we still are...

yeah, among the many things that have shocked me during this whole process has been how wrong my assumptions about timing have been. anybody who cares to know the truth has known it for several years now, but the governing bodies have managed virtually nothing. if you're frustrated with our government's inability to do anything, take a gander at this, people!

[chrishoke]

Is there a chart or graph that shows the number of fake class participants per sport per year? It's been forever since I read the Wainstein Report.

I know it is easy for folks (and I count myself among them) who see the rise of Duke hoops, and the timing of the cheating, as cause and effect. That could also be the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo proptor hoc as well though. Would like to see some stats.

See the first post here: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=167&f=1386&t=15013368

[OldPhiKap]

See the first post here: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=167&f=1386&t=15013368

What happened to Grace Slick?

Your link there was to premium content so it did not open on my office computer. Will check when I get home because I never remember passwords.

[budwom]

no it's not.

Look at duke's ascent in the late 80s and early 90's it is VERY clear to see that this cheating was in response to Duke's success on the basketball court. I believe almost all of the early enrollments were Dean Smith basketball players. There is no question at all that this started with basketball, spread to football and eventually every sport at UNC wanted to use.

I agree, the timing of this is most damning. Enter the likes of Rasheed Wallace....I'd love to see his transcripts. (If nominated for President, I'll release mine!)

[luvdahops]

I agree, the timing of this is most damning. Enter the likes of Rasheed Wallace...I'd love to see his transcripts. (If nominated for President, I'll release mine!)

I think Sheed is actually a pretty bright guy, though a nut case to be sure. Stackhouse and McInnis on the other hand.....

[budwom]

I think Sheed is actually a pretty bright guy, though a nut case to be sure. Stackhouse and McInnis on the other hand....

Not dissing his intelligence, but he wasn't a luminary in the classroom I am told....Dean certainly got his just desserts with the McInnis recruitment, and then some. And then some more.

[Nugget]

While it is still disturbing that the amended NOA seemed to go out of its way to avoid mentioning basketball or football specifically (inexplicably being subject to the interpretation that UNC's AFRI/AFAM dept., Athletics Dept., university administrators and Academic Support Program for Student Athletes designed an 18 scheme of fraud solely intended to help keep Women's Basketball players eligible), having read the NCAA Enforcement Staff's reply to UNC's response to the amended NOA suggests at least some hope that the NCAA won't completely roll over on this -- albeit that the focus of their allegations (other than Boxil's conduct re Women's basketball) is largely directed at the institution/Athletic Dept as a whole.

Among other things, the staff comes out squarely in favor of the notion that this is an impermissible benefits case (exacerbated into Level I violations by failure to monitor/lack of institutional control):

"[The Cadwalader report] provided, for the first time, a complete picture of the athletics department's preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses and, in some cases, how it used those courses to retain NCAA academic eligibility for student-athletes. This access provided student-athletes with advantages that other students simply did not have. However, at no point did the institution monitor the relationship between the AFRI/AFAM department and athletics. Nor did it monitor the athletics department's access to and use of these courses. Indeed, the institution demonstrated a lack of control by declining to act when notified of concerns and by allowing preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses to continue unchecked." (p. 3.)

The staff comes out swinging on the "procedural" arguments made by UNC (asserting "each is without merit"), and points out that UNC essentially offers no defense to the merits -- "ts response rests almost entirely on these procedural issues and touches only minimally on the underlying substantive facts." (p. 5.)

The "procedural" challenges raised by UNC are: (1) the NCAA lacks "jurisdiction" over "matters related to academic structure, content and process" [a/k/a the "Jay Bilas argument" -- that if UNC chose to offer "easy" classes that is none of the NCAA's business]; (2) a 4 year statute of limitations applies and there is no alleged misconduct after 2011; (3) the investigation and sanctions of UNC football in 2010-2012 were "Final" decisions on the conduct at issue in the NOA and cannot be re-opened because "nothing prevented enforcement staff from seeking and obtaining additional evidence" of the AFRI/AFAM anamolous courses at that time; and (4) "Fairness" -- namely, that the Cadwalader report is "unduly prejudicial" because of the way the witness interviews were conducted.

The NCAA staff makes short shrift of the "Finality" and "Fairness" objections (pp. 9-14), essentially pointing out that (a) the 2012 football case involved different issues, (b) the argument that the NCAA could have gotten the information that came out in the Cadwalader report by its own investigation in 2010-2011 flips the NCAA's "cooperative principle" on its head (namely, the NCAA relies on the schools to thoroughly self-investigate and provide all relevant information within the institution's control -- UNC can't use its own shoddy prior investigations to bar review of the newly discovered evidence), and (c) there is nothing unduly prejudicial about the COI's considering the publicly-available information in the Cadwalader report, the accuracy of which UNC has never challenged, noting that its "attempt to exclude this document appears only to be an effort to omit information the institution believes to be damaging...."

On the "Jurisdictional" challenge, the enforcement staff rightly notes that UNC's argument grossly mischaracterizes the allegations -- that the NCAA is not challenging whether UNC had the right to offer "easy" classes (which it agrees is outside its jurisdiction), but rather the athtletic department's uses of those classes in a manner not available to the general student body (and the university's failure to monitor/lack of institutional control over that extra benefit to athletes):

"The institution argues that ‘The NCAA's constitution and bylaws do not extend to matters related to academic structure, content, and process on a member institution's campus.’ The enforcement staff agrees. … The amended notice of allegations does not suggest otherwise. If the allegations are read closely, it is evident that the enforcement staff has no desire to challenge the institution on how academic departments are managed, even if managed poorly. Instead, each allegation in the amended notice of allegations is tethered directly to athletics and how the unmonitored athletics department used anomalous courses in a manner different from the general student body in violation of NCAA rules. The preferential and near unfettered access the AFRI/AFAM department gave athletics to the anomalous courses provided student-athletes with advantages that others simply did not have.

This is best demonstrated by uncontroverted enrollment numbers. Over the 18 years the institution offered these anomalous courses, student-athlete enrollment in the courses amounted to 47.4 percent of total enrollment. That level of use by student-athletes did not happen accidentally. Administrators who were responsible for monitoring student-athlete access to and use of courses failed in their monitoring duties. This failure is an NCAA violation impacting values at the heart of the NCAA. In addition, the institution, which is responsible for controlling its athletics department, failed in its fundamental obligation to operate in compliance with the NCAA constitution and bylaws by allowing the conduct to occur unchecked or uncorrected over a period of many years. This lack of control is also an NCAA violation impacting values at the heart of the NCAA. Contrary to the institution's position, these are athletics issues tied directly to NCAA [rules]. …
The institution identified no basis for concluding that the Committee on Infractions is without jurisdiction and, instead, wholly mischaracterized the nature of the allegations." (p. 6.)

On the Statute of Limitations, the issue is somewhat convoluted, but the Staff's argument is that the relevant deadline is Feb. 21, 2010 and that some of the violations occurred after that, so those would facially be timely. More importantly, they point out that Bylaws 19.5.11(b) and (c) have two exceptions to the 4 year window: (i) if there is a "pattern of willful violations ... that began before and continue[d] into the four-year period" (which they argue is met here) and (ii) if the allegations "indicate a blatant disregard for the NCAA's fundamental recruiting, extra benefit, academic or ethical conduct bylaws or involve an effort to conceal the occurrence of the violation," which they argue is met here because the allegations "involve alleged violations of academic, extra benefit and ethical conduct bylaws," and the length/extent of violations from 2003 - 2011 show "blatant disregard." (pp. 7-8).

On the merits, while much of the "facts" are redacted, they take a strong position that there were Level I violations for both Failure to Monitor to the ASPSA and AFRI/AFAM departments and Lack of Institutional Control:

VII. ALLEGATION NO. 4 - Failure to monitor. (pp. 31-39) ….

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I

The enforcement staff believes the [COI] could determine that Allegation No. 4 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I) because the violation seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the collegiate model. The failure to monitor the ASPSA staff, Boxill and the AFRI/AFAM department led to preferential access to the anomalous courses, use of those courses by student athletes at a higher rate than the general student body . . .

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation.

Beginning in 1999, Crowder developed "paper" courses used by the student body, ASPSA and student-athletes. The almost complete lack of faculty interaction, the absence of classroom attendance, the relatively little amount of academic work required and the higher-than-average grades awarded on completion made these courses anomalous from those typically taught at North Carolina. …

Some students had difficulty meeting certain undergraduate academic requirements and Crowder designed these courses to help students missing these requirements. ... The institution took no action to monitor her, confirm the propriety of her conduct or otherwise assure that she operated in compliance with NCAA rules. …

[The facts detailed in sections largely redacted] caused the athletics academic counselors within ASPSA to turn to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses as a way to bolster the athletics academic eligibility of these at-risk student-athletes who struggled with the academic rigor of the institution. Yet, even with these documented concerns and warning signs, the institution failed to assure compliant practices and failed to monitor the important work of ASPSA staff members working with student-athletes. Although allegedly driven by a motivation to help all students, Crowder had a special relationship with athletics, specifically ASPSA, and with student-athletes. … This relationship allowed the athletics academic counselors within ASPSA to manipulate or take advantage in order to obtain a greater level of support and privileges from the AFRI/AFAM department when compared to the general student body. …

The sheer volume of activity and the closeness between the two departments allowed student-athletes to enroll in these classes at a rate of 47 percent when student athletes comprised only 3 percent of the student body population and allowed these student athletes to excel in these courses. Although it is not unusual for an institution to have perceived "easy courses" and for student-athletes to enroll in these courses, what makes this situation unique is the sheer volume of these courses, athletics' preferential access to them and the lack of institutional monitoring. [fn. 82: For example, Crowder indicated that if a student-athlete was on a waitlist for an AFRI/AFAM course, she would take care of it and enroll the student-athlete in the course.] … At risk student-athletes in particular needed these courses to retain their athletics eligibility. …

When Crowder decided to retire in 2009 and the ASPSA staff realized these courses would no longer be offered, it caused two reactions. First, the AS SA staff alerted the student-athletes that they would need to complete and tum in their homework as soon as possible so Crowder could grade the papers. …Second, ASPSA informed the coaching staff, specifically the football coaching staff, to highlight the ramifications the loss of these courses would cause. [discusses the Bridger Power Point presentation about the prior practice of putting players in the fake classes that nonetheless met degree requirements and noted that option would no longer be available.] Both reactions demonstrate the importance of these courses to ASPSA and the student-athletes enrolled in them. ...

The institution argues that the facts demonstrate a Level II violation because the institution only failed to monitor Boxill. However, as discussed above, the institution not only failed to monitor Boxill, but it also failed to monitor the relationship between the AFRI/AFAM department and ASPSA. Further, it failed to monitor student-athletes' preferential access to and use of the anomalous courses despite red flags. This failure to monitor was not limited in nature as the institution suggests and occurred over a seven-year time span. Ultimately, these circumstances provided the institution with a competitive advantage because it helped keep at-risk student athletes eligible.


VIII. ALLEGATION NO. 5 - Lack of institutional control. (pp. 40-41)

B. Enforcement staff's position as to why the violations should be considered Level I

…. The enforcement staff believes the [COI] could determine that Allegation No. 5 is a severe breach of conduct (Level I) because the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the collegiate model and lack of control violations are presumed Level I. Although leadership both on campus and within athletics knew of the anomalous courses and athletics' use of those courses, the institution failed to investigate and curb those practices.

C. Enforcement staff's review of facts related to the allegation

On several occasions, the issue of the anomalous courses and athletics' use of those courses came to the attention of campus administrators. They had actual notice of concerns. During the summer of 2006, a news media report discussing an NCAA Division I school, student-athletes and their use of independent study courses garnered nation-wide attention. …

Because of Dick Baddour's …hands-off management approach, Mercer and Blanchard also did not receive support from the athletics department on this issue. Institutional leaders chose not to act. ASPSA employees understood that those on campus, at the very least, knew of the courses. …

Despite the warning to reduce student-athlete enrollment numbers and other red flags, the institution did not eliminate or otherwise address the courses and student-athletes continued to enroll in them at disproportionate rates. Further, nobody from the institution's leadership looked into why student-athletes had enrolled in these courses at such high numbers. …

Reynolds noted in an additional email that if someone other than Crowder graded the papers, the student-athletes would receive "C's and D's at best." This series of correspondence shows not only the openness with which the ASPSA department discussed the anomalous courses, but also the level of communication between ASPSA and the AFRI/AFAM department to the point where ASPSA knew that Crowder, and not an instructor, would grade the final papers. Despite this openness and the knowledge of the anomalous courses by [University] leadership … at no point did those in authority put an end to the anomalous courses or athletics' use of those courses. Further, nobody questioned the appropriateness of a department administrator, not an instructor, grading coursework. As a result, practices that compromised the collegiate model and provided unfair advantages to the institution continued unchecked for many years. ….
Despite this deficiency, it appears the compliance staff had some level of knowledge concerning the anomalous courses. In an email exchange between Brent Blanton, athletics academic counselor, and Amy Hermann, former director of compliance, Hermann references the "infamous paper classes." The record does not indicate any time where the compliance staff looked into the anomalous course issue or investigated ASPSA's close relationship with the AFRI/AFAM department. Accordingly, the institution allowed both to continue for a disturbing duration.

[budwom]

^ yeah, I wonder what penalties they might consider when their focus seems to be on the athletic dept. as a whole....I have no idea what to expect. History
says to expect nothing....but they do seem rather riled about unc's fecklessness (to be kind).

I'm still not happy about Amy Herman's landing zone...

[OldPhiKap]

The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.

[WiJoe]

I've typed this before and I'll type it again: Because it is the WORST academic scandal in NCAA history and continuing to lie and deny, if I'm the NCAA, I'm throwing a SEVERE penalty at unCHEAT, including loss of hoops title, and saying here's your option: take it, or we're shutting down your ENTIRE athletics program. Then see how tough unCHEAT is.

[sammy3469]

BTW, there are more NCAA-UNC letters about how we got to this point that are instructive here:

http://media2.newsobserver.com/static/content/multimedia/interactive/uncscandal/pdf/unc-ncaa-response-bond.pdf

Couple of points:


This thing has been nasty since Dec '15 when UNC basically said they wanted to interview all the enforcement staff. The NCAA told them No and things went downhill from there
A big part of UNC's argument seems to be just flood the COI with argument after argument on every mundane point. Needless to say, it isn't going over well.
A bunch of people will find this rich, but most of the changes from the NOA to the ANOA seem to be based on UNC using ACC determinations on what are impermissible benefits.
Stanky has already ruled against UNC on information to be looked/included at in the upcoming hearing.


Just reading these letters, it's pretty clear that everyone at the NCAA, from enforcement, to AMA, to the COI are pretty fed up with UNC at this point. Whether that means they do anything substantial is another matter, but Stanky (chief hearing officer of the COI and SEC commissioner) wants this over. UNC "won" on their NOA argument, but appears to have burned their bridges doing so.

[wilko]

I've typed this before and I'll type it again: Because it is the WORST academic scandal in NCAA history and continuing to lie and deny, if I'm the NCAA, I'm throwing a SEVERE penalty at unCHEAT, including loss of hoops title, and saying here's your option: take it, or we're shutting down your ENTIRE athletics program. Then see how tough unCHEAT is.

Best penalty for UNC is:
In every home game in every sport, home fans Must wear a Duke Shirt/Jersey/Hat and keep it on for the duration as a condition of the ticket to enter and remain at the home event. THAT will make sure they never do it again...

[Stray Gator]

^ yeah, I wonder what penalties they might consider when their focus seems to be on the athletic dept. as a whole...I have no idea what to expect. History
says to expect nothing...but they do seem rather riled about unc's fecklessness (to be kind).

I'm still not happy about Amy Herman's landing zone...

The NCAA's response cites an e-mail exchange between a UNC athletics academic counselor and Amy Herman, the former director of compliance at UNC, in which there was reference to the "infamous paper classes," as evidence that "the compliance staff had some level of knowledge regarding the anomalous courses" but did not look into the issue, thereby allowing the anomalous courses and the relationship between the athletics counseling staff and the AFAM Department "to continue for a disturbing duration." If it is true that Herman was aware of UNC's use of "paper classes" to maintain the eligibility of athletes but failed to investigate or report these improper benefits, I believe that absent proof of some compelling justification for her failure to act, Duke should demand her resignation or terminate her employment immediately, because it would be evident that she cannot be relied upon to perform her job, which includes protecting the integrity of the institution that has entrusted her with such responsibility. The University should not assume the risk of similar misfeasance by her in the future that could cause severe damage to Duke and everyone associated with the school.

[budwom]

^precisely

[OldPhiKap]

The NCAA's response cites an e-mail exchange between a UNC athletics academic counselor and Amy Herman, the former director of compliance at UNC, in which there was reference to the "infamous paper classes," as evidence that "the compliance staff had some level of knowledge regarding the anomalous courses" but did not look into the issue, thereby allowing the anomalous courses and the relationship between the athletics counseling staff and the AFAM Department "to continue for a disturbing duration." If it is true that Herman was aware of UNC's use of "paper classes" to maintain the eligibility of athletes but failed to investigate or report these improper benefits, I believe that absent proof of some compelling justification for her failure to act, Duke should demand her resignation or terminate her employment immediately, because it would be evident that she cannot be relied upon to perform her job, which includes protecting the integrity of the institution that has entrusted her with such responsibility. The University should not assume the risk of similar misfeasance by her in the future that could cause severe damage to Duke and everyone associated with the school.

As usual, when Stray Gator weighs in, he is spot on. Exactly.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Best penalty for UNC is:
In every home game in every sport, home fans Must wear a Duke Shirt/Jersey/Hat and keep it on for the duration as a condition of the ticket to enter and remain at the home event. THAT will make sure they never do it again...

Ew, I don't want them in our gear.

[MarkD83]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but this pdf came from unc. So how do we know it is authentic

[CameronBornAndBred]

IC is on lockdown, no mention at all.


How they doing over there? Still all rosy?

[devildeac]

The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.
The whole world is watching.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR6BeerSSWw

The first 60-70 seconds will do, unless, of course you like really old Chicago Transit Authority music ;) .

[alteran]

How they doing over there? Still all rosy?

There's a thread there now. Not a lot of comments. More denial than not.

[BD80]

How they doing over there? Still all rosy?


https://youtu.be/zDAmPIq29ro

[OldPhiKap]

Not to rain on anyone's parade but this pdf came from unc. So how do we know it is authentic

Manalishi vouched for it over on PackPride.

[ricks68]

Manalishi vouched for it over on PackPride.

Wasn't Manalishi either suckered in or part of the scam the last time around-----or not?:confused:

ricks

[OldPhiKap]

Wasn't Manalishi either suckered in or part of the scam the last time around-----or not?:confused:

ricks

Yes, bad joke on my part.

[wilko]

Ew, I don't want them in our gear.

Really?
So they'd have to buy something to support a university they dont like to participate in (gain admittance) to something they DO like...
Something they'd undernormal circumstances NEVER EVER consider doing of their own free will... Best case you get tons of pictures of your UNC fans to never make them forget. (may as well catch them tarred and feathered) Or no ever shows up to games .... Win Win either freaking way....

[PackMan97]

Best penalty for UNC is:
In every home game in every sport, home fans Must wear a Duke Shirt/Jersey/Hat and keep it on for the duration as a condition of the ticket to enter and remain at the home event. THAT will make sure they never do it again...

Better penalty - No home games for two seasons.

[MarkD83]

Ew, I don't want them in our gear.

They must wear Presbyterian gear and scream as loud as they can when unc players take free throws.

[OldPhiKap]

How about they all just go to class? That may prove to be a dizzying and disorienting thing in and of itself.

Basketball will skate.

[wilko]

Better penalty - No home games for two seasons.

If we can’t use this as a “Lucille”, to bludgeon and beat on UNC fans while they are defenseless and cause great misery, what good is it?
Its gotta be fun and entertaining for us (well, ok ME), right?

[PackMan97]

If we can’t use this as a “Lucille”, to bludgeon and beat on UNC fans while they are defenseless and cause great misery, what good is it?
Its gotta be fun and entertaining for us (well, ok ME), right?

Great idea! We keep punishing them each year until we no longer see "that look" in their eyes.

[moonpie23]

well, then.....back to it!!

from where i'm sitting, the only punishment that's being heaped on them is some slimy "trash talking" about them. When i see some REAL punishment (banners/schollies/post season bans) heaped on them, then i'll quit feeling like they got away with it all..

that's not the current feeling tho...

[BD80]

well, then....back to it!!

from where i'm sitting, the only punishment that's being heaped on them is some slimy "trash talking" about them. When i see some REAL punishment (banners/schollies/post season bans) heaped on them, then i'll quit feeling like they got away with it all..

that's not the current feeling tho...

In a way, unc is getting the punishment it deserves: death by a thousand cuts.

If it had received some draconian punishment, tar heels would always have the argument that the sanctions were too harsh, and nobody plays the martyr better than ol' roy. A severe penalty would have its consequence, but would have a temporal limit, permitting a renaissance. Kentucky basketball and Penn State football come to mind.

What is happening now is brand erosion. unc is fast losing its claim as top tier academic school. The "carolina way" is but a punchline. Top ten recruits are no longer lining up to visit chapel hill.

Kids now want to "be like Steph," as MJ is losing relevance. No one of any level of popularity is rising to defend unc.

The longer this drags on, the longer ol' roy will stay and fight for his program, which will cause it to continue to weaken as his recruiting energies continue to wane.

By "lawyering the hell out of" the NCAA investigation, unc has lost credibility, lost any sympathies engendered when encountering the NCAA, and has kept the academic sham in news cycle after news cycle for years now. Public opinion recognizes that multiple unc championships were bogus

Sure, the script is dull and the characters absolutely unlikeable. The episodes are repetitious and highly predictable. But this is a soap opera I hope plays on for years to come.

[moonpie23]

In a way, unc is getting the punishment it deserves: death by a thousand cuts.



Sure, the script is dull and the characters absolutely unlikeable. The episodes are repetitious and highly predictable. But this is a soap opera I hope plays on for years to come.

i feel like i'm the one being cut........remember, they were allowed to ALMOST win the natty last year....

[devildeac]

Nice read in today's N&O:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article110662842.html

I like the conclusion/s:

"That was all part of the NCAA’s larger dissatisfaction with North Carolina for indulging in an existential approach to the case while largely declining to address the material claims among the allegations. These changing circumstances may bode poorly for the university down the road. The NCAA has never been shy about bringing all weapons to bear on targets it considers uncooperative.

If things have truly turned adversarial, this is increasingly an all-or-nothing proposition for UNC."

[bob blue devil]

What is happening now is brand erosion. unc is fast losing its claim as top tier academic school. The "carolina way" is but a punchline. Top ten recruits are no longer lining up to visit chapel hill.


i agree. but i don't know that the brand erosion that has occurred is enough to bring perception even in the vicinity of the reality. most people view this as another athletics cheating scandal and don't appreciate just how badly the facts condemn the leadership and stakeholders of the unc.

[devildeac]

i feel like i'm the one being cut...remember, they were allowed to ALMOST win the natty last year...

Have you sent flowers to Kris Jenkins, our hero, yet?

;)

[NSDukeFan]

How about they all just go to class? That may prove to be a dizzying and disorienting thing in and of itself.

Basketball will skate.

Probably a bit too harsh a penalty as they would have to change the whole place to an academic institution and are too far from that now.

[wsb3]

i feel like i'm the one being cut...remember, they were allowed to ALMOST win the natty last year...

Keyword being ALMOST.. The way they lost at the very end had to leave a mark & will for a long time..Pretty devastating way to lose. I feel for their suffering. I really do.. :rolleyes:

[BLPOG]

Keyword being ALMOST.. The way they lost at the very end had to leave a mark & will for a long time..Pretty devastating way to lose. I feel for their suffering. I really do.. :rolleyes:

Here's the thing: the lingering sting of coming so close is a much bigger deal if there is no prospect of return in the near future, which we thought was an actual possibility back then. The neutered NOA changed that. Now they have an extremely successful non-natty season to look back upon.

[plimnko]

How about they all just go to class? That may prove to be a dizzying and disorienting thing in and of itself.

Basketball will skate.

they would have to find the classrooms first. that's uncharted territory in the unc athletic system

[BD80]

they would have to find the classrooms first. that's uncharted territory in the unc athletic system

Come on, they have academic advisors who, um, well ... I see your point.

[BigWayne]

Nice read in today's N&O:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article110662842.html

I like the conclusion/s:

"That was all part of the NCAA’s larger dissatisfaction with North Carolina for indulging in an existential approach to the case while largely declining to address the material claims among the allegations. These changing circumstances may bode poorly for the university down the road. The NCAA has never been shy about bringing all weapons to bear on targets it considers uncooperative.

If things have truly turned adversarial, this is increasingly an all-or-nothing proposition for UNC."

I really like that last line.

UNC's petulant response was equivalent to rejecting the plea bargain and praying for jury nullification. Things are going to turn out badly for the heels.

[OldPhiKap]

Procedural hearing is today I believe. Wonder when we get a ruling.

[alteran]

Yes, bad joke on my part.
I laughed, FWIW.

[alteran]

In a way, unc is getting the punishment it deserves: death by a thousand cuts.

If it had received some draconian punishment, tar heels would always have the argument that the sanctions were too harsh, and nobody plays the martyr better than ol' roy. A severe penalty would have its consequence, but would have a temporal limit, permitting a renaissance. Kentucky basketball and Penn State football come to mind.

What is happening now is brand erosion. unc is fast losing its claim as top tier academic school. The "carolina way" is but a punchline. Top ten recruits are no longer lining up to visit chapel hill.

Kids now want to "be like Steph," as MJ is losing relevance. No one of any level of popularity is rising to defend unc.

The longer this drags on, the longer ol' roy will stay and fight for his program, which will cause it to continue to weaken as his recruiting energies continue to wane.

By "lawyering the hell out of" the NCAA investigation, unc has lost credibility, lost any sympathies engendered when encountering the NCAA, and has kept the academic sham in news cycle after news cycle for years now. Public opinion recognizes that multiple unc championships were bogus

Sure, the script is dull and the characters absolutely unlikeable. The episodes are repetitious and highly predictable. But this is a soap opera I hope plays on for years to come.

This. Totally.

This whole thing has caused them a lot of damage. The very great irony is that if they had not fought tooth and nail, just apologized and accepted responsibility, the AFAM shenanigans would never even have been found out.

Once the AFAM thing exploded, they still could have apologized, admitted trouble, self-imposed 2 years of post-season bans and 10% scholly reductions and the NCAA would have gone "whew!" and gone along with it. Hell, a lot of us here would have thought, "hmmm, hard to believe something like that happened there, but I'm not surprised they got to the bottom of it" and moved on.

By fighting tooth and nail they have savaged their own reputation, the phrase "Carolina Way" has literally become a joke, and they have had their programs whacked with a thousand cuts. (Mostly in bball.)

Boy did they make this bed. And it's still not over.

I don't know whether the NCAA is going to roll ever here or not-- and I'm certainly loathe to get my hopes up -- but UNC has taken on a lot of damage because of their moronic cover-up. As deserved as a massive surrender of titles and scholarships is, karmically they've taken a good whacking.

[OldPhiKap]

I laughed, FWIW.

Worth a lot to me, thanks!

Does anyone know a timeline for a decision on today's "procedural" hearing? This seems to be the make-or-break part of the case for both parties. If UNC cuts the heart of the claims out, they skate. If UNC loses on its argument, UNC is basically laid bare without defense because of the Wainstein Report and UNC's past history of misleading and shading the NCAA -- hammer time.

Reminds me of moving for summary judgment as a civil defendant on a statute of limitation or standing procedural argument, with an otherwise horrific set of facts. You win the motion, you win the war. You lose the motion, you know the jury verdict could be painful.

Procedure is not a minor thing. Sometimes, it's the whole thing.

[UrinalCake]

^ the procedural hearing is closed, so neither party has to release anything, but we would have to assume that if it is good news for UNC we will hear plenty about it right away. If it is bad for UNC, it will be crickets until the COI meeting.

[chrishoke]

^ the procedural hearing is closed, so neither party has to release anything, but we would have to assume that if it is good news for UNC we will hear plenty about it right away. If it is bad for UNC, it will be crickets until the COI meeting.

So no news will be good news.

[devildeac]

^ the procedural hearing is closed, so neither party has to release anything, but we would have to assume that if it is good news for UNC we will hear plenty about it right away. If it is bad for UNC, it will be crickets until the COI meeting.


So no news will be good news.

This is what I'm thinking, too. The count of monte christo re-appears on PackPride if the cheaters are successful or, we wait (im)patiently another 3-6 months for the COI and subsequent appeals if the ncaa has grown a couple and is really pissed by decades of lying and cheating by the bastards in chappaheeya. Really don't know what to expect at this time.

[grad_devil]

I'm in Indianapolis next week for meetings at the NCAA.

Don't think I wouldn't be sick <cough, cough>, and skip my meetings if it were this week. I don't have a degree in behavioral analysis, but I would stakeout the hearings and do my best to decipher something as the interested parties left.

I'll ask my D2 NCAA staff contacts if they know anything, but since the staff federated a few years, they don't usually have any helpful information; at least none they're willing to share!

[devildeac]

I'm in Indianapolis next week for meetings at the NCAA.

Don't think I wouldn't be sick <cough, cough>, and skip my meetings if it were this week. I don't have a degree in behavioral analysis, but I would stakeout the hearings and do my best to decipher something as the interested parties left.

I'll ask my D2 NCAA staff contacts if they know anything, but since the staff federated a few years, they don't usually have any helpful information; at least none they're willing to share!

Drink some Sun King and/or 3 Floyds while you're vacationing, err, working.

[OldPhiKap]

we wait (im)patiently another 3-6 months for the COI and subsequent appeals

A new basketball season; the same old cloud overhead . . . .

[Rich]

A new basketball season; the same old cloud overhead . . . .

Here's hoping it's a big ol' dark storm cloud with downpours, thunder and lightning rather than one of those nice, white, fluffy, pillow-like clouds.

[OldPhiKap]

Here's hoping it's a big ol' dark storm cloud with downpours, thunder and lightning rather than one of those nice, white, fluffy, pillow-like clouds.

"Oh, a storm is threat'ning
My very life today
If I don't get some shelter
Oh yeah, I'm gonna fade away"

[DukieInKansas]

Here's hoping it's a big ol' dark storm cloud with downpours, thunder and lightning rather than one of those nice, white, fluffy, pillow-like clouds.

I like this weather forecast.

[sammy3469]

Worth a lot to me, thanks!

Does anyone know a timeline for a decision on today's "procedural" hearing? This seems to be the make-or-break part of the case for both parties. If UNC cuts the heart of the claims out, they skate. If UNC loses on its argument, UNC is basically laid bare without defense because of the Wainstein Report and UNC's past history of misleading and shading the NCAA -- hammer time.

Reminds me of moving for summary judgment as a civil defendant on a statute of limitation or standing procedural argument, with an otherwise horrific set of facts. You win the motion, you win the war. You lose the motion, you know the jury verdict could be painful.

Procedure is not a minor thing. Sometimes, it's the whole thing.

There's actually some info in the Oct 17, 2016 NCAA letter to UNC. Basically the COI can have the full hearing as soon as they rule on the procedural hearing since they are using UNC's Aug 1 response as the date of record for everything going forward (ie they could have also had the regular hearing today, but chose not to). UNC won't necessarily get any time or even the ability to re-submit info since their response was due on August 1 (ie they don't get to modify their response if this hearing goes against them especially if the info was known prior to August 1).

If you want some solace on how Stanky (he's the chair of the COI and more importantly the Chief Hearing Officer in the case in charge of procedural matters) is going to rule, it's that letter which is basically tethering UNC to that Aug 1 response and a timetable he is setting. He pretty clearly has taken control of the process now and is basically going to rule in his and presumably the NCAA's best interest (I'm reminded that their "best interests" may not be perfectly aligned). For a whole host of reasons, I find it hard to believe, Stanky will rule their enforcement staff butchered the 2010-11 review. He may rule the 2013 AMA review is/was pertinent, but that's irrelevant once Wainstein info is included in the record since Stanky would effectively be saying Wainstein is new info and thus UNC wasn't being truthful/forthcoming from 2010-13 (ie there are some things he can rule in favor of UNC in this hearing to appear to be objective that wouldn't alter the ultimate outcome).

Last thing I'll say is that I think it's important to remember Stanky doesn't make himself the Chief Hearing Officer on the case (and make no mistake he chose to take this case on...it could have been randomly generated, but wasn't) unless he's willing to deal with whatever legal repercussions arise down the road. For better or worse, he's taken control of the process and I'm guessing already knows how the rest of this case will play out.

[Rich]

There's actually some info in the Oct 17, 2016 NCAA letter to UNC. Basically the COI can have the full hearing as soon as they rule on the procedural hearing since they are using UNC's Aug 1 response as the date of record for everything going forward (ie they could have also had the regular hearing today, but chose not to). UNC won't necessarily get any time or even the ability to re-submit info since their response was due on August 1 (ie they don't get to modify their response if this hearing goes against them especially if the info was known prior to August 1).

If you want some solace on how Stanky (he's the chair of the COI and more importantly the Chief Hearing Officer in the case in charge of procedural matters) is going to rule, it's that letter which is basically tethering UNC to that Aug 1 response and a timetable he is setting. He pretty clearly has taken control of the process now and is basically going to rule in his and presumably the NCAA's best interest (I'm reminded that their "best interests" may not be perfectly aligned). For a whole host of reasons, I find it hard to believe, Stanky will rule their enforcement staff butchered the 2010-11 review. He may rule the 2013 AMA review is/was pertinent, but that's irrelevant once Wainstein info is included in the record since Stanky would effectively be saying Wainstein is new info and thus UNC wasn't being truthful/forthcoming from 2010-13 (ie there are some things he can rule in favor of UNC in this hearing to appear to be objective that wouldn't alter the ultimate outcome).

Last thing I'll say is that I think it's important to remember Stanky doesn't make himself the Chief Hearing Officer on the case (and make no mistake he chose to take this case on...it could have been randomly generated, but wasn't) unless he's willing to deal with whatever legal repercussions arise down the road. For better or worse, he's taken control of the process and I'm guessing already knows how the rest of this case will play out.

Damn, if I were in trouble, I wouldn't want my hearing officer to be named Stanky. It just sounds like he would be a bitter, bitter man.

(No offense to anyone else on this Board named Stanky.)

[mgtr]

Damn, if I were in trouble, I wouldn't want my hearing officer to be named Stanky. It just sounds like he would be a bitter, bitter man.

(No offense to anyone else on this Board named Stanky.)

Now if it were Spanky, as in Spanky McFarland, that would be a whole different manner. Stanky is bad, however.

[alteran]

Damn, if I were in trouble, I wouldn't want my hearing officer to be named Stanky. It just sounds like he would be a bitter, bitter man.

(No offense to anyone else on this Board named Stanky.)

This is fun and all, and I hate to be That Guy, but I think it might be good to point out that his name is SANKEY (http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/index.ssf/2015/03/greg_sankey_man_who_helped_judge_syracuse_in_ncaa_ investigation_named_new_sec_co.html).

[sammy3469]

This is fun and all, and I hate to be That Guy, but I think it might be good to point out that his name is SANKEY (http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/index.ssf/2015/03/greg_sankey_man_who_helped_judge_syracuse_in_ncaa_ investigation_named_new_sec_co.html).

Thank you...that's what I get for typing that on a phone.

[MChambers]

This is fun and all, and I hate to be That Guy, but I think it might be good to point out that his name is SANKEY (http://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/index.ssf/2015/03/greg_sankey_man_who_helped_judge_syracuse_in_ncaa_ investigation_named_new_sec_co.html).

I still hope he is a bitter, bitter man!

[Troublemaker]

Among other things, the staff comes out squarely in favor of the notion that this is an impermissible benefits case (exacerbated into Level I violations by failure to monitor/lack of institutional control):

"[The Cadwalader report] provided, for the first time, a complete picture of the athletics department's preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses and, in some cases, how it used those courses to retain NCAA academic eligibility for student-athletes. This access provided student-athletes with advantages that other students simply did not have. However, at no point did the institution monitor the relationship between the AFRI/AFAM department and athletics. Nor did it monitor the athletics department's access to and use of these courses. Indeed, the institution demonstrated a lack of control by declining to act when notified of concerns and by allowing preferential access to anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses to continue unchecked." (p. 3.)

<snip>

"The institution argues that ‘The NCAA's constitution and bylaws do not extend to matters related to academic structure, content, and process on a member institution's campus.’ The enforcement staff agrees. … The amended notice of allegations does not suggest otherwise. If the allegations are read closely, it is evident that the enforcement staff has no desire to challenge the institution on how academic departments are managed, even if managed poorly. Instead, each allegation in the amended notice of allegations is tethered directly to athletics and how the unmonitored athletics department used anomalous courses in a manner different from the general student body in violation of NCAA rules. The preferential and near unfettered access the AFRI/AFAM department gave athletics to the anomalous courses provided student-athletes with advantages that others simply did not have.

This is best demonstrated by uncontroverted enrollment numbers. Over the 18 years the institution offered these anomalous courses, student-athlete enrollment in the courses amounted to 47.4 percent of total enrollment. That level of use by student-athletes did not happen accidentally. Administrators who were responsible for monitoring student-athlete access to and use of courses failed in their monitoring duties. This failure is an NCAA violation impacting values at the heart of the NCAA. In addition, the institution, which is responsible for controlling its athletics department, failed in its fundamental obligation to operate in compliance with the NCAA constitution and bylaws by allowing the conduct to occur unchecked or uncorrected over a period of many years. This lack of control is also an NCAA violation impacting values at the heart of the NCAA. Contrary to the institution's position, these are athletics issues tied directly to NCAA [rules]. …
The institution identified no basis for concluding that the Committee on Infractions is without jurisdiction and, instead, wholly mischaracterized the nature of the allegations." (p. 6.)

<snip>

[The facts detailed in sections largely redacted] caused the athletics academic counselors within ASPSA to turn to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses as a way to bolster the athletics academic eligibility of these at-risk student-athletes who struggled with the academic rigor of the institution. Yet, even with these documented concerns and warning signs, the institution failed to assure compliant practices and failed to monitor the important work of ASPSA staff members working with student-athletes. Although allegedly driven by a motivation to help all students, Crowder had a special relationship with athletics, specifically ASPSA, and with student-athletes. … This relationship allowed the athletics academic counselors within ASPSA to manipulate or take advantage in order to obtain a greater level of support and privileges from the AFRI/AFAM department when compared to the general student body. …


Great stuff, Nugget.

I'm not going to get my hopes up, but the case for impermissible benefits does seem strong.

The general student body ALSO has to deal with "eligibility" issues, namely they have to avoid academic probation/suspension by maintaining a GPA above 2.0 (or sometimes 2.5, depending on the institution) in order to continue at the school. It is possible for the general student to flunk out of university and waste his/her money that was spent on courses and textbooks. At UNC, it was NOT possible for a student-athlete to flunk out or become ineligible because they had academic counselors who would point them to paper classes when they were at-risk. While it's true that the general student body could also enroll in these "classes," they had to hear about it by word of mouth; if they weren't tapped into the grapevine, and most were not, they had no access to these GPA boosters. Student-athletes, meanwhile, were advantaged because of ASPSA's knowledge of and relationship to the AFRI/AFAM anomalous courses and "professor." That does seem to be an impermissible benefit provided to the student-athletes at UNC during that time.

[BigWayne]

Worth a lot to me, thanks!

Does anyone know a timeline for a decision on today's "procedural" hearing? This seems to be the make-or-break part of the case for both parties. If UNC cuts the heart of the claims out, they skate. If UNC loses on its argument, UNC is basically laid bare without defense because of the Wainstein Report and UNC's past history of misleading and shading the NCAA -- hammer time.

Reminds me of moving for summary judgment as a civil defendant on a statute of limitation or standing procedural argument, with an otherwise horrific set of facts. You win the motion, you win the war. You lose the motion, you know the jury verdict could be painful.

Procedure is not a minor thing. Sometimes, it's the whole thing.

I haven't read every last detail of the last few exchanges, but from what I did read, it does not look like the NCAA is buying the line of BS UNC is peddling anymore. The hearing today is not in court of law, it's a sub-panel of the COI which has no good reason to view UNC's argument favorably or objectively. UNC's argument is essentially that the COI doesn't have the right to pass judgement on UNC. The people deciding are part of the COI. I don't see how UNC prevails today and makes it all go away.

[MarkD83]

I haven't read every last detail of the last few exchanges, but from what I did read, it does not look like the NCAA is buying the line of BS UNC is peddling anymore. The hearing today is not in court of law, it's a sub-panel of the COI which has no good reason to view UNC's argument favorably or objectively. UNC's argument is essentially that the COI doesn't have the right to pass judgement on UNC. The people deciding are part of the COI. I don't see how UNC prevails today and makes it all go away.

I would agree with you but this entire process (NOA, ANOA, NCAA coming up with new academic rules last March...) does not feel or look like any other NCAA infraction case. I just hope that the COI calls BS on the whole issue.

I could also see that this "procedural meeting" is a way for the NCAA to save face. The decision could look like this...

"Until March of 2016, the NCAA by-laws were not adequate enough to rule on the integrity of academic curricula at member schools. We (the NCAA) have relied on member institutions and external accreditation boards to assess academic integrity. In this case, while the classes in question were deemed to be anomalous by the member institution (UNC), the accreditation board that oversees UNC's academic rigor has ruled that steps have been taken to address future anomalous classes. The NCAA with great cooperation from UNC has developed new by-laws to address inadequacies in the NCAA's by-laws in regard to academic integrity. Given UNC's cooperation in improving our mission to protect the student-athlete and the ruling by the accreditation board, this case is closed."

[devil84]

I would agree with you but this entire process (NOA, ANOA, NCAA coming up with new academic rules last March...) does not feel or look like any other NCAA infraction case. I just hope that the COI calls BS on the whole issue.

I could also see that this "procedural meeting" is a way for the NCAA to save face. The decision could look like this...

"Until March of 2016, the NCAA by-laws were not adequate enough to rule on the integrity of academic curricula at member schools. We (the NCAA) have relied on member institutions and external accreditation boards to assess academic integrity. In this case, while the classes in question were deemed to be anomalous by the member institution (UNC), the accreditation board that oversees UNC's academic rigor has ruled that steps have been taken to address future anomalous classes. The NCAA with great cooperation from UNC has developed new by-laws to address inadequacies in the NCAA's by-laws in regard to academic integrity. Given UNC's cooperation in improving our mission to protect the student-athlete and the ruling by the accreditation board, this case is closed."

It sure could pan out that way, and I wouldn't be surprised. However, in reference to the text I emphasized above, I'm not sure how the NCAA's most recent response jibes with "UNC's cooperation." In fact, their response reads more like a strong admonishment that UNC "wholly mischaracterized the nature of the allegations," let the paper classes scheme "go unchecked for a disturbing duration," and that UNC's positions are "without merit." That doesn't sound like "cooperation" to me.

UNC may/might/probably will skate. But the COI's response gives me hope. I may be Charlie Brown and the COI is Lucy holding the football, though.

[BigWayne]

Five hour meeting between UNC and NCAA in Indy, but no comment all around. (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article111184207.html) Speculate as need be.

[sagegrouse]

I would agree with you but this entire process (NOA, ANOA, NCAA coming up with new academic rules last March...) does not feel or look like any other NCAA infraction case. I just hope that the COI calls BS on the whole issue.

I could also see that this "procedural meeting" is a way for the NCAA to save face. The decision could look like this...

"Until March of 2016, the NCAA by-laws were not adequate enough to rule on the integrity of academic curricula at member schools. We (the NCAA) have relied on member institutions and external accreditation boards to assess academic integrity. In this case, while the classes in question were deemed to be anomalous by the member institution (UNC), the accreditation board that oversees UNC's academic rigor has ruled that steps have been taken to address future anomalous classes. The NCAA with great cooperation from UNC has developed new by-laws to address inadequacies in the NCAA's by-laws in regard to academic integrity. Given UNC's cooperation in improving our mission to protect the student-athlete and the ruling by the accreditation board, this case is closed."

MarkD, do you think letting UNC skate is "saving face?" Really? UNC doesn't mean anything to the NCAA family. It doesn't have a national following like ND or Bama. It's another school with barely top 30 revenue and a great basketball tradition (uh, same as Duke). Whoop-te-doo!! If UNC skates, what would be the reaction at SMU, Syracuse, USC, Weber State, and Minnesota and every other school that got hammered for fairly limited offenses? This is the most egregious and voluminous case of cheating I have ever seen or heard of. Peace in the NCAA family would happen if UNC received a post-season ban in EVERY sport for four years, loss of scholarships, and an eight-figure fine. And the presence of the heavy hitters on the COI is an indication that UNC may indeed "skate," but off a cliff.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Seldom right but never in doubt'

[OldPhiKap]

MarkD, do you think letting UNC skate is "saving face?" Really? UNC doesn't mean anything to the NCAA family. It doesn't have a national following like ND or Bama. It's another school with barely top 30 revenue and a great basketball tradition (uh, same as Duke). Whoop-te-doo!! If UNC skates, what would be the reaction at SMU, Syracuse, USC, Weber State, and Minnesota and every other school that got hammered for fairly limited offenses? This is the most egregious and voluminous case of cheating I have ever seen or heard of. Peace in the NCAA family would happen if UNC received a post-season ban in EVERY sport for four years, loss of scholarships, and an eight-figure fine. And the presence of the heavy hitters on the COI is an indication that UNC may indeed "skate," but off a cliff.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Seldom right but never in doubt'

Following this, Syracuse and USC have much bigger financial impacts on the NCAA that Carolina but got significant penalties for much smaller conduct. The Heels have essentially said, "you can't do anything about one of the biggest athlademic scandals in college sports history. Go pound sand." It seems to me that, for the NCAA, "saving face" is making an example of those cheating buggers.

[MarkD83]

MarkD, do you think letting UNC skate is "saving face?" Really? UNC doesn't mean anything to the NCAA family. It doesn't have a national following like ND or Bama. It's another school with barely top 30 revenue and a great basketball tradition (uh, same as Duke). Whoop-te-doo!! If UNC skates, what would be the reaction at SMU, Syracuse, USC, Weber State, and Minnesota and every other school that got hammered for fairly limited offenses? This is the most egregious and voluminous case of cheating I have ever seen or heard of. Peace in the NCAA family would happen if UNC received a post-season ban in EVERY sport for four years, loss of scholarships, and an eight-figure fine. And the presence of the heavy hitters on the COI is an indication that UNC may indeed "skate," but off a cliff.

Kindly,
Sage Grouse
'Seldom right but never in doubt'

This whole thing defies logic and I am as appalled as you are about UNC. In fact I agree with all of your points...

but
1) the NCAA just named a prestigious award after Dean Smith so could they really take away one of his National Championships
2) they just let UNC delay any decision until after UNC had a chance to win another national championship instead of doling out punishment right away
3) they just amended the main NOA to remove the words saying men's basketball benefited while still leaving the factual evidence intact (the W report) could they really now go back and severally punish men's basketball
4) they continue to say they are all about student athletes and had many chances to make a clear statement about how students were cheated but did not, so why now
5) I believe the NCAA is still part of several law suits being brought by student athletes. Their defense is that they are not the group that judges academic integrity, so why do that now and have direct evidence that the NCAA in fact does judge academic integrity.
6) (Just read the short article from the N&O.) The timing and pathway for release of information in this case has always been through UNC including comments from Bubba yesterday. For some reason it appears as if UNC has been in control of this process the whole time making me wonder if they did not make some deal with the NCAA already which the NCAA does not want to have made public.



I don't like it but I can see how some factions within the NCAA would consider all of these tangential issues as being embarrassing. I hope the COI does not care.

[BigWayne]

6) (Just read the short article from the N&O.) The timing and pathway for release of information in this case has always been through UNC including comments from Bubba yesterday. For some reason it appears as if UNC has been in control of this process the whole time making me wonder if they did not make some deal with the NCAA already which the NCAA does not want to have made public.

The NCAA is a private entity and not subject to FOIA requests. The only reason UNC releases interim information is because they have to by law. Of course, they push the limits with their redactions.

[MarkD83]

The NCAA is a private entity and not subject to FOIA requests. The only reason UNC releases interim information is because they have to by law. Of course, they push the limits with their redactions.

I am just trying to play devil's advocate here so take my comments with a grain of salt...

Of course the NCAA is not forced to reveal any information. However, after the 5 hour meeting yesterday the announcement to wait 5 months is from Bubba which is conveniently the length of another men's bball season. The NCAA could come out and say "the case is proceeding to the COI and we have no further comment" but they did not.

I understand that the NCAA should not release documents since they could be considered to be private communications between the NCAA and UNC. However, the NCAA has not even announced procedural information. That tells me that UNC won the procedural battle.

Now my more pessimistic view........

Last year UNC administrators and coaches all stated that bball and football were not mentioned in the NOA. However, the words were clearly there. These statements were made as early as the Fall of 2015. UNC did not receive the ANOA until the Spring and "Lo and behold" no mention of bball and football in the main body of the ANOA. UNC also found a way to embarrass Dan Kane and Pack Pride along the way. Bubba now sees another opportunity to embarrass the entities they blame for the whole mess (Dan Kane and Pack Pride). Even on today's front page of DBR is a link to more articles speculating why UNC should be punished. UNC will let this go for 5 months, get to play in the NCAA, sign bball and football recruits and then make an announcement to embarrass everyone that writes articles chastising them. I believe they are also hoping some of these articles are off-base enough that they can sue the N&O and Dan Kane for defamation.

As far as the NCAA is concerned I believe that UNC has convinced them that the best defense against suits from student athletes is to claim that academics is not their jurisdiction. Therefore, a ruling against UNC would ruin that defense.

This all sounds nefarious and far-fetched but somehow perversely logical for this case and for institutions that have far more ego than brains. Or perhaps they are smarter than we think.

[sagegrouse]

I am just trying to play devil's advocate here so take my comments with a grain of salt...

Of course the NCAA is not forced to reveal any information. However, after the 5 hour meeting yesterday the announcement to wait 5 months is from Bubba which is conveniently the length of another men's bball season. The NCAA could come out and say "the case is proceeding to the COI and we have no further comment" but they did not.

I understand that the NCAA should not release documents since they could be considered to be private communications between the NCAA and UNC. However, the NCAA has not even announced procedural information. That tells me that UNC won the procedural battle.

Now my more pessimistic view....

Last year UNC administrators and coaches all stated that bball and football were not mentioned in the NOA. However, the words were clearly there. These statements were made as early as the Fall of 2015. UNC did not receive the ANOA until the Spring and "Lo and behold" no mention of bball and football in the main body of the ANOA. UNC also found a way to embarrass Dan Kane and Pack Pride along the way. Bubba now sees another opportunity to embarrass the entities they blame for the whole mess (Dan Kane and Pack Pride). Even on today's front page of DBR is a link to more articles speculating why UNC should be punished. UNC will let this go for 5 months, get to play in the NCAA, sign bball and football recruits and then make an announcement to embarrass everyone that writes articles chastising them. I believe they are also hoping some of these articles are off-base enough that they can sue the N&O and Dan Kane for defamation.

As far as the NCAA is concerned I believe that UNC has convinced them that the best defense against suits from student athletes is to claim that academics is not their jurisdiction. Therefore, a ruling against UNC would ruin that defense.

This all sounds nefarious and far-fetched but somehow perversely logical for this case and for institutions that have far more ego than brains. Or perhaps they are smarter than we think.

If UNC "won the procedural battle," then the case is over except for some tidying up around WBB. I doubt that's the situation. As the NCAA stated, UNC decided to address procedural issues like "statue of limitations" and "admissibility" and not the substantive charges. Sounds like a Hail Mary pass to me.

[slower]

...is low expectations. I expect ZERO in the way of punishment for the Holes. Anything is gravy.

And the notion that Carolina basketball is not a "national brand" is somewhat delusional. Hopefully it (their brand recognition) will fade as Michael Jordan becomes a wobbly old megalomaniac, but they are still on the national radar. Thank God for Kris Jenkins.

[MarkD83]

If UNC "won the procedural battle," then the case is over except for some tidying up around WBB. I doubt that's the situation. As the NCAA stated, UNC decided to address procedural issues like "statue of limitations" and "admissibility" and not the substantive charges. Sounds like a Hail Mary pass to me.

Perhaps I am like slower and just lowering my expectations. However if I were bubba and just won the battle I would worry about making an announcement due to the backlash that Roy and fedora would face. So make the statement that 5 months from now we will know and by then your coaches are on the golf course away from the infuriated press

[LastRowFan]

Are there any updates on the UNC-Cheat NCAA case? I could use some news or rumors ...

[devildeac]

Are there any updates on the UNC-Cheat NCAA case? I could use some news or rumors ...

grad_devil was at some D2 meetings this week or last week and was going to try and extract some info from folks he knows, so we are hoping he remembers us...

[OldPhiKap]

Are there any updates on the UNC-Cheat NCAA case? I could use some news or rumors ...

My guess is that, generally, no news is good news. UNC will crow loudly and quickly if there is good news. They will stonewall if bad news.

In the meantime, they can rot in Hell those cheating weasels.

[lotusland]

Are there any updates on the UNC-Cheat NCAA case? I could use some news or rumors ...

A lot of people are saying Cheatin' Carolina is going to get sch!0n&3d. Hammer is coming down BIGLY.

[wilko]

A lot of people are saying Cheatin' Carolina is going to get sch!0n&3d. Hammer is coming down BIGLY.

Lotta folks been saying it for a long time..... hopefully its true.
I'd love for the "Hammer down" news to come out on 12/23... JUST in time for the Christmas Holiday so the Heel fans will be reminded of it with every present opening..
Merry Christmas Eff'ers.

But I'll believe it when I see it.

[grad_devil]

grad_devil was at some D2 meetings this week or last week and was going to try and extract some info from folks he knows, so we are hoping he remembers us...

I returned home Tuesday night from back-to-back meetings in Indianapolis with D2 staff and membership reps. You want the short version? As I expected, due to federation the D2 staff is pretty much in the dark regarding the procedural hearings that went on a couple of Fridays ago. Now, they could have been stonewalling, but my conversations were in a casual environment (over dinner + drinks), and I didn't get the feeling they were withholding any information.

That's the short story.

The long story is that they're frustrated. Frustrated with SACS (just as we are), for not being able (or willing) to hold UNC-CH's feet the fire regarding the fraudulent academics - which is directly in SACS' wheelhouse. They're frustrated with UNC-CH's spin, because it's NCAA policy not to comment on nearly all of these events, leaving that up to the member institutions.

There's more frustration there, I believe, but it went unspoken. I interpreted it as they were tired of UNC-CH egregiously breaking the spirit (and letter) of the legislation that protects the ability of the student-athlete to get an actual education, and then attempting to wriggle their way out of any penalty.

Take that last paragraph with a grain of salt; I may be projecting. :p

<mild rant>
I will take a moment to say that I've always been impressed with NCAA D2 staff (who, by the way, are almost all female - from the VP, Director, Assoc Director and Assist. Director of staff with whom I work). They are extremely knowledgeable, and equip us - the membership - to make informed decisions without dictating policy.

I'll also take a moment to say I'm extremely proud of D2, and my university in particular. We graduate so many first-time and under-prepared student-athletes that might not have had the opportunity for a college education except for athletics. Much of what we're able to do is funded by the NCAA (97%-ish of revenue is redistributed between the three divisions), because heaven knows we don't make any money off of athletics.
</mild rant>

Sorry for that. Talk about derailing a thread, eh? :o


I suspect you'll [be] massively sporked should you extract any info next week. Of course, you may be forever shunned should you obtain no valuable facts/rumors/innuendoes.

I will now self-impose a brief hiatus (see that, UNC-CH?) in hopes of avoiding lifetime banishment.

[devildeac]

I returned home Tuesday night from back-to-back meetings in Indianapolis with D2 staff and membership reps. You want the short version? As I expected, due to federation the D2 staff is pretty much in the dark regarding the procedural hearings that went on a couple of Fridays ago. Now, they could have been stonewalling, but my conversations were in a casual environment (over dinner + drinks), and I didn't get the feeling they were withholding any information.

That's the short story.

The long story is that they're frustrated. Frustrated with SACS (just as we are), for not being able (or willing) to hold UNC-CH's feet the fire regarding the fraudulent academics - which is directly in SACS' wheelhouse. They're frustrated with UNC-CH's spin, because it's NCAA policy not to comment on nearly all of these events, leaving that up to the member institutions.

There's more frustration there, I believe, but it went unspoken. I interpreted it as they were tired of UNC-CH egregiously breaking the spirit (and letter) of the legislation that protects the ability of the student-athlete to get an actual education, and then attempting to wriggle their way out of any penalty.

Take that last paragraph with a grain of salt; I may be projecting. :p

<mild rant>
I will take a moment to say that I've always been impressed with NCAA D2 staff (who, by the way, are almost all female - from the VP, Director, Assoc Director and Assist. Director of staff with whom I work). They are extremely knowledgeable, and equip us - the membership - to make informed decisions without dictating policy.

I'll also take a moment to say I'm extremely proud of D2, and my university in particular. We graduate so many first-time and under-prepared student-athletes that might not have had the opportunity for a college education except for athletics. Much of what we're able to do is funded by the NCAA (97%-ish of revenue is redistributed between the three divisions), because heaven knows we don't make any money off of athletics.
</mild rant>

Sorry for that. Talk about derailing a thread, eh? :o



I will now self-impose a brief hiatus (see that, UNC-CH?) in hopes of avoiding lifetime banishment.

Thank you for responding. I figured there'd be little info but I really do appreciate your thoughts/ideas/info and have issued sporks appropriately as promised. Would have enjoyed seeing you and your lovely female accomplice at a tailgate this year. Perhaps 2017.

[JasonEvans]

The long story is that they're frustrated. Frustrated with SACS (just as we are), for not being able (or willing) to hold UNC-CH's feet the fire regarding the fraudulent academics - which is directly in SACS' wheelhouse.

I am not an expert, not by a long stretch, about SACS, but I must say, I am not sure I get the frustration with it. I am not sure what more SACS could have done. Did we expect SACS to remove the accreditation from one of the largest universities in the country, thereby invalidating tens of thousands of degrees (the vast, vast, vast majority of which were untainted and unaffected by the academic fraud connected to a few hundred athletes)?

As I see it, the problem for SACS was that they wield a huge, massive, punishing nuclear weapon but they don't really have any knives or even pea shooters. There is nothing between, "put them on probation and make them file more time-consuming reports" and "destroy the university by removing their accreditation."

As I said, I am far from fully educated about these things, but I would love to hear what else/more SACS could have done.

-Jason "I think SACS would have had to rewrite their own governing rules to do something different" Evans

[grad_devil]

<snip>
As I see it, the problem for SACS was that they wield a huge, massive, punishing nuclear weapon but they don't really have any knives or even pea shooters. There is nothing between, "put them on probation and make them file more time-consuming reports" and "destroy the university by removing their accreditation.
</snip>

This. I should have been more clear. The frustration wasn't necessarily with SACS' actions, but more so that they only have a limited toolbox when it comes to infractions; essentially, exactly what you said above.

Sorry for the lack of clarity.

[English]

I am not an expert, not by a long stretch, about SACS, but I must say, I am not sure I get the frustration with it. I am not sure what more SACS could have done. Did we expect SACS to remove the accreditation from one of the largest universities in the country, thereby invalidating tens of thousands of degrees (the vast, vast, vast majority of which were untainted and unaffected by the academic fraud connected to a few hundred athletes)?

As I see it, the problem for SACS was that they wield a huge, massive, punishing nuclear weapon but they don't really have any knives or even pea shooters. There is nothing between, "put them on probation and make them file more time-consuming reports" and "destroy the university by removing their accreditation."

As I said, I am far from fully educated about these things, but I would love to hear what else/more SACS could have done.

-Jason "I think SACS would have had to rewrite their own governing rules to do something different" Evans

And what's more, SACS explicitly said UNC perpetrated academic fraud. SACS explicitly said what UNC did was a grievous violation, and not "easy classes that all schools offer." In no way did SACS endorse UNC's sham system as legitimate (which Bubba, and subsequently UNC's defenders, repeated over and over in defending itself in its PR attempts). In fact, quite the contrary.

The real failure is that the NCAA somehow cannot use SACS' own words for its purposes to demonstrate a violation of its rules. Essentially, what has happened here is that the NCAA cannot pass judgment on a member institution's academic programs (outside jurisdiction, as is appropriate), AND the NCAA cannot rely on the accreditation board as its measure of academic legitimacy because even if SACS cites academic fraud, its definition of academic fraud doesn't match that of SACS. Basically, according to UNC's defense in this perverse universe, unless a member's institution's academic behavior is so abhorrent as to justify rescinding its accreditation, the NCAA's hands are bound. It's mind-numbing.

[UrinalCake]

I always felt like SACS's role was to ensure that UNC got back into compliance, and once they were satisfied that UNC was no longer cheating they had no reason to continue the probation. They were not going to retroactively apply punishment for things that happened in the past. There is no "Accredited by SACS" banner from previous years that could be taken down. They only live in the moment.

The frustrating part to me is that the NCAA has failed to consider SACS's findings in their own investigation. They keep saying that academics is out of their jurisdiction. Well then, why not rely on the organization that DOES have jurisdiction over academics and use their information, rather than simply ignoring the issue entirely? UNC admitted academic fraud in their response to SACS. They used the exact term, Academic Fraud, and said "we committed this." So why does the NCAA continue to turn a blind eye? They don't need to prove academic fraud, it has already been done for them.

[PackMan97]

As I said, I am far from fully educated about these things, but I would love to hear what else/more SACS could have done.

-Jason "I think SACS would have had to rewrite their own governing rules to do something different" Evans

The could have extended the probation to a second year.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I always felt like SACS's role was to ensure that UNC got back into compliance, and once they were satisfied that UNC was no longer cheating they had no reason to continue the probation. They were not going to retroactively apply punishment for things that happened in the past. There is no "Accredited by SACS" banner from previous years that could be taken down. They only live in the moment.

The frustrating part to me is that the NCAA has failed to consider SACS's findings in their own investigation. They keep saying that academics is out of their jurisdiction. Well then, why not rely on the organization that DOES have jurisdiction over academics and use their information, rather than simply ignoring the issue entirely? UNC admitted academic fraud in their response to SACS. They used the exact term, Academic Fraud, and said "we committed this." So why does the NCAA continue to turn a blind eye? They don't need to prove academic fraud, it has already been done for them.

Well, because if it's out of their jurisdiction, then it's not their issue to deal with. I mean, if I work for the NC Highway Patrol and I get evidence that a car was speeding in SC, I still don't arrest them.

I don't understand WHY academics are so evidently not the NCAA's jurisdiction, but if that's their story, at least it's consistent.

[English]

Well, because if it's out of their jurisdiction, then it's not their issue to deal with. I mean, if I work for the NC Highway Patrol and I get evidence that a car was speeding in SC, I still don't arrest them.

I don't understand WHY academics are so evidently not the NCAA's jurisdiction, but if that's their story, at least it's consistent.

Determining what constitutes a legitimate college course is out of the NCAA jurisdiction. Punishing academic fraud is NOT out of the NCAA jurisdiction.

In a separate analogy, if you worked for a trucking company that employed truck drivers, it would not be within your jurisdiction to arrest a speeding motorist. However, if your company's policy was that, in order for a driver to be eligible to drive for your company, s/he couldn't have a speeding ticket, you'd still be able to "punish" a driver when s/he was found to have been illegally speeding by the proper authority.*

*Likely an imperfect analogy, but it's one of the first that came to mind.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Determining what constitutes a legitimate college course is out of the NCAA jurisdiction. Punishing academic fraud is NOT out of the NCAA jurisdiction.

In a separate analogy, if you worked for a trucking company that employed truck drivers, it would not be within your jurisdiction to arrest a speeding motorist. However, if your company's policy was that, in order for a driver to be eligible to drive for your company, s/he couldn't have a speeding ticket, you'd still be able to "punish" a driver when s/he was found to have been illegally speeding by the proper authority.*

*Likely an imperfect analogy, but it's one of the first that came to mind.

My analogy was also bad. No judging there.

The NCAA stating that academics is outside of their jurisdiction doesn't make it not so, true. However us saying that it is within their purview also does not make it so.

We need some sort of citation.

**Also, this might be the worst wording I have ever used in a post. I hope you can wade through it and see what I mean.

[UrinalCake]

The NCAA does not claim that academics are out of their jurisdiction. They claim that determining the academic integrity of a class is out of their jurisdiction. They leave that up to the schools to do. If a school investigates themselves, determines that academic fraud occurred and self-reports it to the NCAA then they will absolutely penalize the school for that as we have seen in numerous other cases.

The issue here is that the model assumes a certain amount of morality and common decency from the schools, which UNC does not have. They are happy to claim that all of these fake classes were legit, leaving the NCAA with nothing to go on. Unless, of course, the very agency responsible for determining the school's academic worthiness were to get involved...

[English]

The NCAA does not claim that academics are out of their jurisdiction. They claim that determining the academic integrity of a class is out of their jurisdiction. They leave that up to the schools to do. If a school investigates themselves, determines that academic fraud occurred and self-reports it to the NCAA then they will absolutely penalize the school for that as we have seen in numerous other cases.

The issue here is that the model assumes a certain amount of morality and common decency from the schools, which UNC does not have. They are happy to claim that all of these fake classes were legit, leaving the NCAA with nothing to go on. Unless, of course, the very agency responsible for determining the school's academic worthiness were to get involved...

Which it did. And found a series of grievous violations, enough to merit the most serious penalty short of accreditation revocation (probation, guhhh). So, uh, you know, it was bad.

You would think that, from this finding, the NCAA would have some grounds for punishment of academic fraud. Or, at least in a universe with some foundation of logic, you would think so.

[75Crazie]

The NCAA does not claim that academics are out of their jurisdiction. They claim that determining the academic integrity of a class is out of their jurisdiction. They leave that up to the schools to do. If a school investigates themselves, determines that academic fraud occurred and self-reports it to the NCAA then they will absolutely penalize the school for that as we have seen in numerous other cases.

The issue here is that the model assumes a certain amount of morality and common decency from the schools, which UNC does not have. They are happy to claim that all of these fake classes were legit, leaving the NCAA with nothing to go on. Unless, of course, the very agency responsible for determining the school's academic worthiness were to get involved...
This post needs to be archived in a manner that it is readily recallable and displayable. This is the best two-paragraph summation of the whole Carolina situation that I have seen.

[Nugget]

Which it did. And found a series of grievous violations, enough to merit the most serious penalty short of accreditation revocation (probation, guhhh). So, uh, you know, it was bad.

You would think that, from this finding, the NCAA would have some grounds for punishment of academic fraud. Or, at least in a universe with some foundation of logic, you would think so.

It would, except the SACS "findings" were generic to the academics of the institution -- not that (1) the fraud was done to benefit athletics or (2) specific athletes who otherwise would have been ineligible used the phony classes to become eligible.

Those are the only things that NCAA really has jurisdiction over. The 2nd point is one that UNC has tenaciously (and, seemingly successfully, given the amended NOA and even the broad/vague response to UNC's response by the NCAA enforcement staff) sought to avoid addressing, notwithstanding what seemed to be compelling evidence unearthed by the N&O's FOIA requests.

[kcduke75]

Please, someone, anyone, is there any sense of the timing? Days, weeks, months, (sigh) or years?