UNC Scandal: NCAA issues new Notice of Allegations against UNC

[JasonEvans]

Need to read to get some details... this could be big!

http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1739350-ncaa-issues-unc-new-anoa

[elvis14]

Need to read to get some details... this could be big!

http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1739350-ncaa-issues-unc-new-anoa

I hope they put direct referenced to the cheating Men's basketball team back in the NOA!!

[UrinalCake]

"Sources confirm this new version reinstates aspects of the original first notice that were then altered for the amended notice."

I just did my happy dance 8-)

[CameronBornAndBred]

"Sources confirm this new version reinstates aspects of the original first notice that were then altered for the amended notice."

I just did my happy dance 8-)

That amended notice, which was released on April 25 (http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1664026-amended-noa-lessens-charges), replaced the impermissible benefits allegation with a failure to monitor academic support charge and removed all references to the men’s basketball and football programs.

:D:cool::D

[CameronBornAndBred]

Of course, some at UNCheat may be doing a happy dance as well. (Not as happy as UC, but still tapping their feet.)


Should UNC opt to follow the protocol for the investigative process, this new amended notice of allegations resets the timeline for a resolution. The school has 90 days to respond to the notice, and the NCAA then has 60 days to provide a response to the COI, which then schedules a hearing to review and rule on the case.

[SCMatt33]

This story has gone full soap opera, recycling the same shocking twists over and over until we wake up one day and the same story has somehow been dragging on for 25 years. I'm just waiting for Roy's evil twin to make an appearance.

[JasonEvans]

Ok, this is big.

When the amended NOA was released it removed football and basketball from harm's way. It would be quite significant if we are now going back to the original NOA because it included this line:


This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these
courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically
at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and
women's basketball.

Additionally, the original NOA contained references to numerous documents contained in the Wainstein Report that are extremely damning to revenue sports at Carolina. The original NOA also contained several Level 1 infractions and Lack of Institutional Control allegations, the kind of stuff that carries really stiff penalties.

Put another way, the original NOA would allow the COI to bring http://www.clipartkid.com/images/823/description-thors-hammer-VmOd4x-clipart.png down on Carolina.

Someone pass the popcorn!!

--Jason "as a refresher, here is the original NOA (http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf)... enjoy!" Evans

[YmoBeThere]

This story has gone full soap opera, recycling the same shocking twists over and over until we wake up one day and the same story has somehow been dragging on for 25 years. I'm just waiting for Roy's evil twin to make an appearance.

So, JR Reid will reappear?

[Avvocato]

I'll wait for Manalishi or RCCPMD to confirm the sources before I get too excited. Just kidding. Sort of. But not really.

[UrinalCake]

Ok, this is big.

When the amended NOA was released it removed football and basketball from harm's way.

When the first NOA came out, Roy claimed that basketball was not specifically mentioned. This led to a bunch of hand-wringing over verbiage, as basketball was clearly mentioned but was not "specifically" mentioned if you define specifically to mean the only sport mentioned.

Then when the amended NOA was released, Roy claimed there could be no penalties against men's basketball because it had been removed from the NOA (which of course begs the question of how it could be removed if it was never there in the first place).

So if the third NOA puts men's basketball back in (which has not been confirmed, I'm just saying IF) then how will Roy and the CHeats respond?

[Merlindevildog91]

I would like to get excited about this, but I feel like the jury, although still out, is driving Fats Thomas' vehicles and watching TV in Ol' Roy's house with Will Graves providing bowls of munchies (or bowls AND munchies).

[UrinalCake]

My guess is this new NOA gets released on friday. What better time to bury a story than Christmas Eve - eve.

[WiJoe]

Ho ho ho.

You've been VERY NAUGHTY, unCHEAT.

That said, I'm not holding my breath on this latest amended ANOA. Mater of fact, until all the bs is done, attorneys paid and the penalties served, I'm taking NOTHING for granted.

[Ballboy1998]

My guess is this new NOA gets released on friday. What better time to bury a story than Christmas Eve - eve.

Hopefully it serves as a nice early Xmas present! Ole Roy and UNC men's bball might find out they are back on the naughty list once again.

[Rich]

I know this goes without saying, but the NCAA are a bunch of buffoons. Let me know if I don't have this right, but they open investigations in 2011, then they close them. Then they reopen them in 2014 and issue a notice of allegations that implicate football and basketball, then they send a second notice that retracts those allegations, and now they issue a third notice that may reissue the allegations in the first notice. Abbott and Costello would have handled this better.

Does anyone know why the third notice may reissue the allegations against football and basketball? Should we assume it's because Carolina tried their hardest to delay, block and obfuscate? There's no new evidence as far as anyone knows, correct?

[Indoor66]

I know this goes without saying, but the NCAA are a bunch of buffoons. Let me know if I don't have this right, but they open investigations in 2011, then they close them. Then they reopen them in 2014 and issue a notice of allegations that implicate football and basketball, then they send a second notice that retracts those allegations, and now they issue a third notice that may reissue the allegations in the first notice. Abbott and Costello would have handled this better.

Does anyone know why the third notice may reissue the allegations against football and basketball? Should we assume it's because Carolina tried their hardest to delay, block and obfuscate? There's no new evidence as far as anyone knows, correct?

Maybe the NCAA put adults back in charge.

[gus]

,6972

[hallcity]

It sounds like the Committee on Infractions reviewed the Notice of Allegations made by the NCAA enforcement staff and thought that the enforcement staff was letting UNC off too easy. This suggests that the Committee on Infractions isn't going to let UNC off easy. The idea that UNC could get out of this with nothing more than a fine and a warning seemed absurd to all of us. Apparently, it seemed absurd to the Committee on Infractions as well.

You wonder how long UNC has been sitting on this news. It's so like them to delay releasing this until just before Christmas. They always want to treat this as a public relations problem instead of as the serious substantive problem that it is.

[BLPOG]

At first, I was very surprised to see this thread. A new NOA? Then, reading that it would include some of the older allegations, I was elated.

After a few minutes of reflection, I am despondent.

Why? Because what if this new action is an attempt by the NCAA to so elongate the process as to eventually give credence to the Cheats' woe-is-me claim that the NCAA is punishing them by dragging out the process - that the investigation itself is punishment enough. Eventually the NCAA will say, "UNC, you're right; we're the bad guys here - we've been so unfair to your celebrated program - cleared of all charges! And we've decided to recognize bakers' authority in declaring champions, too!"

I just can't find much cause for optimism when it comes to NCAA competence or integrity.

[devildeac]

So, JR Can'tReid will reappear?

Clarification. ;)

[Indoor66]

Patience, Grasshopper.

[TKG]

What are the chances that ESPN replaces the Grayson "no foul" Allen video with this UNCheat news? They have been such a reliable source for this story, thus far.

[devildeac]

What are the chances that ESPN replaces the Grayson "no foul" Allen video with this UNCheat news? They have been such a reliable source for this story, thus far.

More likely to cover the ND and WFU F "scandals: than this one. :mad:

[Bob Green]

I am of the opinion that the University of North Carolina has managed to:

a) Insult the NCAA COI
b) Piss off the NCAA COI
C) Both a and b

Of course it is possible that:

d) Bob Green is naïve and guilty of wishful thinking

The bottom line for me is I find this whole situation tiresome and really hope it ends soon. How long is it going to take the NCAA to make a decision? Carolina athletics need to be nuked back to the stone age or let go with slap on the wrist. Just do it!

[OldPhiKap]

I refuse to take the bait again. Wake me up if and when this finally ends.

[Tom B.]

Maybe the NCAA put adults back in charge.

Remember, the enforcement staff (which issued the original and first amended NOA) and the COI are two different entities. The enforcement staff is composed of NCAA employees, while the COI is composed of officials from member institutions and conferences, plus an assortment of attorneys and other "distinguished figures" from higher ed, government, business, and college athletics. Here's a list (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1INFRACTION) of the current COI members. They include former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who's now dean of the law school at Belmont University) and Bobby Cremins.

The COI is designed to be independent from the NCAA bureaucracy. With that makeup, it doesn't shock me that the COI would (a) feel greater freedom to diverge from the enforcement staff, if it disagreed with the staff's handling of a matter; and (b) be less receptive to UNC's defense and strategy so far -- especially given that some of the COI members are from schools that were competing against (and arguably victimized by) UNC during its two decades of cheating.

[MChambers]

It sounds like the Committee on Infractions reviewed the Notice of Allegations made by the NCAA enforcement staff and thought that the enforcement staff was letting UNC off too easy. This suggests that the Committee on Infractions isn't going to let UNC off easy. The idea that UNC could get out of this with nothing more than a fine and a warning seemed absurd to all of us. Apparently, it seemed absurd to the Committee on Infractions as well.

You wonder how long UNC has been sitting on this news. It's so like them to delay releasing this until just before Christmas. They always want to treat this as a public relations problem instead of as the serious substantive problem that it is.

I like this interpretation. I have no idea if it's correct, but I am in favor of an optimistic approach.

[devildeac]

More likely to cover the ND and WFU "scandals" than this one. :mad:

Re-posted as corrected/edited after a horrible job of proof-reading :o .

[OldPhiKap]

Remember, the enforcement staff (which issued the original and first amended NOA) and the COI are two different entities. The enforcement staff is composed of NCAA employees, while the COI is composed of officials from member institutions and conferences, plus an assortment of attorneys and other "distinguished figures" from higher ed, government, business, and college athletics. Here's a list (http://web1.ncaa.org/committees/committees_roster.jsp?CommitteeName=1INFRACTION) of the current COI members. They include former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who's now dean of the law school at Belmont University) and Bobby Cremins.

The COI is designed to be independent from the NCAA bureaucracy. With that makeup, it doesn't shock me that the COI would (a) feel greater freedom to diverge from the enforcement staff, if it disagreed with the staff's handling of a matter; and (b) be less receptive to UNC's defense and strategy so far -- especially given that some of the COI members are from schools that were competing against (and arguably victimized by) UNC during its two decades of cheating.

There is also a member from Notre Dame, which just forfeited two year's worth of football victories including its National Champ runner-up year. FWIW.

[SCMatt33]

I refuse to take the bait again. Wake me up if and when this finally ends.

Have you ever read Rip Van Winkle? Just askin'....

[Tom B.]

There is also a member from Notre Dame, which just forfeited two year's worth of football victories including its National Champ runner-up year. FWIW.

An excellent point. And the cheating in Notre Dame's case was mild compared to Carolina's. In the Notre Dame case, a student trainer provided improper "academic extra benefits" (i.e., completed coursework) for a total of eight players. There was no evidence of institutionalized fraud designed to help keep athletes eligible, like there is in the Carolina case.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

I refuse to take the bait again. Wake me up if and when this finally ends.

You mean like high school students being recruited by major programs and deciding and then changing their minds about their lists and/or commitments? Yeah, let me know when they get on campus and I'll believe them! :cool:

[BD80]

Need to read to get some details... this could be big!

http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/story/1739350-ncaa-issues-unc-new-anoa


"Sources confirm this new version reinstates aspects of the original first notice that were then altered for the amended notice."

I just did my happy dance 8-)

MERRY CHRISTMAS roy!

And to tar heel nation!

Wow, the NCAA became Scrooge and the Grinch, all rolled up into one. They went all rogue one and gave us a new hope.

Wish I could hear ol' roy crying to his manicurist: "this is the greatest tragedy since ..."

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO US!


Have you ever read Rip Van Winkle? Just askin'...

Started to, but fell asleep ...

[OldPhiKap]

You mean like high school students being recruited by major programs and deciding and then changing their minds about their lists and/or commitments? Yeah, let me know when they get on campus and I'll believe them! :cool:

Yeah, I try not to follow football recruiting for this very reason.

[House P]

There is also a member from Notre Dame, which just forfeited two year's worth of football victories including its National Champ runner-up year. FWIW.

Those that follow the UNC scandal closely may already know this, but another interesting name on the COI list is Thomas Hill. When I first saw this name, I thought "Hmmm, someone on the COI has the same name as one of the key players on Duke's back-to-back championship teams. There has to be a good joke in there somewhere".

After a quick Google search it turns out that, while the COI member isn't the guy who is most famous for his reaction to Laettner's game winning shot vs Kentucky, the COI member is in fact the father of Duke's Thomas Hill (http://www.studentaffairs.iastate.edu/thomas-l-hill/).

[sammy3469]

It sounds like the Committee on Infractions reviewed the Notice of Allegations made by the NCAA enforcement staff and thought that the enforcement staff was letting UNC off too easy. This suggests that the Committee on Infractions isn't going to let UNC off easy. The idea that UNC could get out of this with nothing more than a fine and a warning seemed absurd to all of us. Apparently, it seemed absurd to the Committee on Infractions as well.

You wonder how long UNC has been sitting on this news. It's so like them to delay releasing this until just before Christmas. They always want to treat this as a public relations problem instead of as the serious substantive problem that it is.

That's almost certainly what had to have happened. Keep in mind too that the COI Chair who was in charge of the Oct 28 procedural hearing was Greg Sankey (SEC commissioner and NCAA bigwig) and that was part of the overall hearing (ie just because it was "narrow" doesn't mean the COI couldn't address other issues). My guess is UNC opened their mouth, pissed Sankey off even more, and the COI either asked enforcement why the ANOA didn't include the initial "extra benefit" angle or wanted it included to address specific sports (i.e. they decided they needed a more forceful step-by-step rules violation for potential litigation that UNC will be sure to bring).

This is a highly unusual step that almost certainly came directly at Sankey's instructions.

[hudlow]

Of course, some at UNCheat may be doing a happy dance as well. (Not as happy as UC, but still tapping their feet.)

Another full season granted by the NCAA.

[BD80]

Those that follow the UNC scandal closely may already know this, but another interesting name on the COI list is Thomas Hill. When I first saw this name, I thought "Hmmm, someone on the COI has the same name as one of the key players on Duke's back-to-back championship teams. There has to be a good joke in there somewhere".

After a quick Google search it turns out that, while the COI member isn't the guy who is most famous for his reaction to Laettner's game winning shot vs Kentucky, the COI member is in fact the father of Duke's Thomas Hill (http://www.studentaffairs.iastate.edu/thomas-l-hill/).

I had forgotten that T Hill's dad was an Olympic bronze medal winner.

From his bio:

"He earned his Ph.D. in Counselor Education from the University of Florida and has written articles on student-athlete development and minority identity development."

T Hill senior might take a particularly dim view of using the African American Studies program as a front for an educational scam (by the athletics department).

[JasonEvans]

ESPN article here (http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/18325400/north-carolina-tar-heels-receive-third-notice-allegations-academic-fraud-scandal)... mainstream media picking up on this. UNC says it will release the new NOA some time soon.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Assuming true, this adds another 6+ months to the timeline until the COI meets and takes some action.

So, that will give us two great summer threads... a championship thread and ANOTHER scandal thread. Fun!

[BD80]

Assuming true, this adds another 6+ months to the timeline until the COI meets and takes some action.

So, that will give us two great summer threads... a championship thread and ANOTHER scandal thread. Fun!

And just think of how all of the extra publicity will help unc recruiting!

At some point (maybe a year or two ago) the constant repetition of the accusations will convince the public that the accusations are true.

[CameronBornAndBred]

ESPN article here (http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/18325400/north-carolina-tar-heels-receive-third-notice-allegations-academic-fraud-scandal)... mainstream media picking up on this. UNC says it will release the new NOA some time soon.

I wasn't much of one to buy into the "ESPN bias" thought process, but my mind has been changed.

The article Jason linked is the exact same as this one posted on WRAL, but with some rather heavy editing. The original is much more critical (or least more pointed) in calling out the cheats for their delay tactics.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-receives-3rd-notice-of-allegations-in-ncaa-case/16360124/

Edit...after reading, I'm not sure if it is a case of editing or blatant and lazy copy and paste work/plagiarism. Too many sentences are the exact same, but some have been altered.

[OldPhiKap]

I wasn't much of one to buy into the "ESPN bias" thought process, but my mind has been changed.

The article Jason linked is the exact same as this one posted on WRAL, but with some rather heavy editing. The original is much more critical (or least more pointed) in calling out the cheats for their delay tactics.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-receives-3rd-notice-of-allegations-in-ncaa-case/16360124/

Edit...after reading, I'm not sure if it is a case of editing or blatant and lazy copy and paste work/plagiarism. Too many sentences are the exact same, but some have been altered.

ESPN has an AP byline, so it may also be that WRAL augmented the article instead of ESPN retracting. Not sure.

[CameronBornAndBred]

ESPN has an AP byline, so it may also be that WRAL augmented the article instead of ESPN retracting. Not sure.

Yep, just noticed that. Would love to know which is the original. Either way, wral's is more fun to read. :cool:

[Tom B.]

So let's see -- assuming UNC got this latest version of the NOA recently, that puts their deadline for responding (90 days out) in mid-March, right around the time of maximum coverage for college basketball. Heh.

[sammy3469]

So let's see -- assuming UNC got this latest version of the NOA recently, that puts their deadline for responding (90 days out) in mid-March, right around the time of maximum coverage for college basketball. Heh.

I would actually guess they've probably had it for close to 30 days already and have been holding it back before they've had to release it because of Kane's longstanding FOIA requests.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Wonder if PackPride has spontaneously combusted yet...

[Olympic Fan]

I will hold off my happy dance until I see the new NOA.

I understand that this may delay the final resolution of this -- and you know UNC will string it out at least through this basketball season -- but if the allegations against basketball (and football) are reinstated -- and I understand that's a big IF -- the ultimate resolution will be closer to real justice.

I thought when I read the original NOA that UNC men's basketball (which is at the center of this issue) could not escape some major punishment -- banners coming down, a postseason ban, etc.

Then we got the second NOA, which seemed to be crafted specifically to protect UNC basketball from significant punishment. I still thought UNC would be hit hard (the second NOA did contain five Level One violations, including LOIC), but in more general terms -- the entire athletic department on probation and a hefty, hefty fine ... but no sports specific penalties (such as postseason ban or wins vacated).

The third NOA will tell us whether or not basketball (and football) are back at risk.

As for the seemingly endless investigation with all its back and forths, this is not close to the longest NCAA investigation on record. The Syracuse problem that led to the 2015 tournament ban and Boeheim's nine-game suspension in 2016 was almost nine years in the making. It's a long, awkward process. But many have observed that the worst punishment is the negative aspects of being in the NCAA spotlight during the long investigation.

This is potentially VERY good news. We won't know for sure until we see the new NOA.

[Tom B.]

I would actually guess they've probably had it for close to 30 days already and have been holding it back before they've had to release it because of Kane's longstanding FOIA requests.


Speaking of Dan Kane, he's got a short article (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article122190244.html) up on the N&O's website about the latest NOA. No new details, though he takes time to remind everyone what the case is about:


The case involves 18 years of bogus classes offered by a former manager of the African and Afro-American Studies department and the department chairman. Half of the roughly 3,100 students who took the classes were athletes, with football and men’s basketball having the highest enrollments.

[hallcity]

ESPN article here (http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/18325400/north-carolina-tar-heels-receive-third-notice-allegations-academic-fraud-scandal)... mainstream media picking up on this. UNC says it will release the new NOA some time soon.

Christmas eve? Fits the UNC MO.

[devildeac]

Another full season granted by the NCAA.

A two-edged sword, for sure. The lying, cheating, dirtbag worms get another MBB season played w/o penalty, but now have another re-amended-ANOA hanging over their university. Let the opposing coaches restart their negative recruiting!

[Tripping William]

Christmas eve? Fits the UNC MO.

But that would be on Saturday, which I don't think will happen. More fitting to have it come on Friday, a/k/a Festivus. Imagine the grievances that could be aired . . ..

[SCMatt33]

Yep, just noticed that. Would love to know which is the original. Either way, wral's is more fun to read. :cool:

I'd say they are both fully written by he AP guy based on how it looks on each site. It's actually not uncommon for there to be a more short form and long form of AP articles. You see it even in things as mundane as game recaps. As for editorial decisions, I would have no idea if ESPN, WRAL etc. have all available versions and make decisions which to run, or they have blanket requests for short or long based on subject, local interest, etc.

Also of not is that none of he mainstream sites picked up on the part where IC claims that specific things are being added back from the original. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it likely hasn't been independently verified by anyone yet.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Merry Christmas, you filthy animals!

[devildeac]

Wonder if PackPride has spontaneously combusted yet...

Wonder if Manalishi has made another appearance...

Wonder if the Count of Monte Christo who punked PackPride and us when the ANOA was issued is making any appearances now...

I'm not visiting PackPride any more but I will be highly appreciative if our friends and fellow posters on DBR, PackMan97 and/or newclasspack, would keep us apprised...

[Tom B.]

Also of not is that none of he mainstream sites picked up on the part where IC claims that specific things are being added back from the original. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it likely hasn't been independently verified by anyone yet.

Yeah, IC apparently has a source that nobody else has been able to confirm.

Won't this be the second time (at least) that IC has scooped everyone else on a story about the investigation? I seem to recall they stole a march on a story about one of the prior versions of the NOA...or maybe it was about UNC's response to one of the prior versions.

[OldPhiKap]

Also of note is that none of he mainstream sites picked up on the part where IC claims that specific things are being added back from the original. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it likely hasn't been independently verified by anyone yet.

Which is why I would not get too excited until it is released.


Yeah, IC apparently has a source that nobody else has been able to confirm.



Which is why I would not get too excited until it is released.

[Olympic Fan]

Yeah, IC apparently has a source that nobody else has been able to confirm.

Won't this be the second time (at least) that IC has scooped everyone else on a story about the investigation? I seem to recall they stole a march on a story about one of the prior versions of the NOA...or maybe it was about UNC's response to one of the prior versions.

Ben Sherman (who runs IC and who wrote the article you refer to) has very good sources within the UNC athletic department. I would count on him to know the UNC POV on any issue -- especially when he's reporting bad news (from the UNC perspective).

[Ballboy1998]

Also of not is that none of he mainstream sites picked up on the part where IC claims that specific things are being added back from the original. Doesn't mean it's not true, but it likely hasn't been independently verified by anyone yet.

Given how things have transpired up to this point, should we also prepare ourselves for this newly amended NOA just to be a further watering down of the allegations?

[El_Diablo]

I refuse to take the bait again. Wake me up if and when this finally ends.

Get your cryo tank ready, this may take a while....

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--zjtqiVfC--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/bu1uczkukdzxyfvsp18q.jpg

[hallcity]

Must be really bad for UNC:

Jay Bilas ‏@JayBilas 2h2 hours ago

Clearly, NCAA Committee on Infractions has a predetermined result, violating its own rules to reach it. Pathetic.

[OldPhiKap]

It just as likely could be a reduction in the allegations due to a favorable ruling on the procedural challenges made by UNC.

Just trying to keep it balanced until released.

[UrinalCake]

.I'm not visiting PackPride any more but I will be highly appreciative if our friends and fellow posters on DBR, PackMan97 and/or newclasspack, would keep us apprised...

No insider information over there, just a lot of similar discussion to what we have here. After getting burned by the Count, everyone's troll radars are up and would be skeptical of anyone claiming to have insider info.

IC is a hoot. A few of their posters feel like they should have accepted the amended NOA and not pushed back. Those posters are immediately labeled as trolls and called out to be banned. Everybody else says they need to sue the NCAA. Man, I'd love for that to happen!

[MChambers]

Assuming true, this adds another 6+ months to the timeline until the COI meets and takes some action.

So, that will give us two great summer threads... a championship thread and ANOTHER scandal thread. Fun!

Both of which will become projected playing time threads!

[devildeac]

Which is why I would not get too excited until it is released and redacted.



Which is why I would not get too excited until it is released and redacted.

Clarifications. ;)

[dahntaysdawg]

How plausible is this theory from an IC Poster:

Just speculating like everyone else, of course, but heres my theory:



We had a negotiated "understanding" that basically took off the table backwards looking penalties (such as banners down and vacated wins) but made no promises on forward looking penalties such as post season bans or loss of scholarships. That was to be hashed out in the "process". Hence the original amended NOA with no impermissible benefits and no mention of names or coaches of major revenue sports. But our contentious response apparently pissed off the COI, who then voided previous "understanding" which in turn required a new ANOA to charge us with the crimes necessary to go backwards as well as forward.

[devildeac]

How plausible is this theory from an IC Poster:

Just speculating like everyone else, of course, but heres my theory:



We had a negotiated "understanding" that basically took off the table backwards looking penalties (such as banners down and vacated wins) but made no promises on forward looking penalties such as post season bans or loss of scholarships. That was to be hashed out in the "process". Hence the original amended NOA with no impermissible benefits and no mention of names or coaches of major revenue sports. But our contentious response apparently pissed off the COI, who then voided previous "understanding" which in turn required a new ANOA to charge us with the crimes necessary to go backwards as well as forward.

I would like to subscribe to (but not count on) that line of thinking (hoping? wishing?), even it originates from an IC poster. :rolleyes:

[BLPOG]

Must be really bad for UNC:

Jay Bilas ‏@JayBilas 2h2 hours ago

Clearly, NCAA Committee on Infractions has a predetermined result, violating its own rules to reach it. Pathetic.

I wonder if Jay could actually name any of those rules? He sure seemed to have trouble making it through the first few pages of the original NOA.

I don't know if it's actually confirmed yet that the new amended NOA is the result of decisions made by the COI, but it's my understanding that this sort of thing is very much within their authority. They don't just make a decision based on what is submitted by the enforcement staff and are allowed to alter the scope of the review/allegations.

[dahntaysdawg]

I would like to subscribe to (but not count on) that line of thinking (hoping? wishing?), even it originates from an IC poster. :rolleyes:

Concur. I apologize if someone has already broken this down, but with all of IC crying out in unison "eff em lets sue" what does UNC have to lose in doing this? I thought someone had mentioned before that by filing a suit this would put EVERYTHING on the table which could be even worse for them.

[UrinalCake]

Questions for Jay Bilas:
- what is the predetermined result that the COI has in mind?
- what rules did it violate?
- how will the new ANOA allow the COI to impose its predetermined result?

I'm assuming Bilas has the answers to all of these questions. Because if he doesn't, then his tweet is pretty meaningless.

[elvis14]

Questions for Jay Bilas:
- what is the predetermined result that the COI has in mind?
- what rules did it violate?
- how will the new ANOA allow the COI to impose its predetermined result?

I'm assuming Bilas has the answers to all of these questions. Because if he doesn't, then his tweet is pretty meaningless.

Let's not forget the biggest questions for Jay:
- why call out the NCAA and not UNC? Do you understand that they cheated for 20 years? Is that OK with you? Why give them a pass just b/c you hate the NCAA?

[UrinalCake]

Concur. I apologize if someone has already broken this down, but with all of IC crying out in unison "eff em lets sue" what does UNC have to lose in doing this? I thought someone had mentioned before that by filing a suit this would put EVERYTHING on the table which could be even worse for them.

Suing the NCAA would give an NCAA lawyer subpoena power to question whoever it wants, and ask them whatever they want under penalty of law. Do you really think UNC wants their entire institution exposed to a real investigation? We're not talking about that clown show of the Martin Report (which Martin himself admitted was a sham). Nor are we talking about the Wainstein Report, which exposed more but was deliberately limited in scope to just AFAM and only over a set period of time, and was constructed to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro. Every investigation conducted thus far has been paid for and executed by UNC themselves, for the purpose of revealing the information they want. The NCAA appears to have not really investigated anything themselves, simply relying on the Wainstein report.

Suing the NCAA and exposing themselves to a completely open, independent investigation is the last thing the CHeats want. Just imagine Crowder, Nyangoro, Boxhill, Walden, even Roy and Bubba being put under oath and made to answer what they know. Hell, imagine Tydreke Powell, Rashaad McCants, Julius Peppers, Fats Thomas, PJ Hairston, etc. being called to the stand. No golden parachutes to stay quiet, no protection from answering what they don't want to. I would spend all day long watching that court proceeding!

[budwom]

How plausible is this theory from an IC Poster:

Just speculating like everyone else, of course, but heres my theory:



We had a negotiated "understanding" that basically took off the table backwards looking penalties (such as banners down and vacated wins) but made no promises on forward looking penalties such as post season bans or loss of scholarships. That was to be hashed out in the "process". Hence the original amended NOA with no impermissible benefits and no mention of names or coaches of major revenue sports. But our contentious response apparently pissed off the COI, who then voided previous "understanding" which in turn required a new ANOA to charge us with the crimes necessary to go backwards as well as forward.

I don't know about the specific agreement mentioned, but I think the essence may well be correct: unc's response was so insulting, disregarding facts in order to argue procedures, that the NCAA got pissed.

[BLPOG]

I don't know about the specific agreement mentioned, but I think the essence may well be correct: unc's response was so insulting, disregarding facts in order to argue procedures, that the NCAA got pissed.

It's not just that they wanted to argue procedure, it's that they wanted to argue procedure and they were wrong. It's similar to the problem with Jay Bilas' pretending that issues aren't a matter for the NCAA and that's a failure of the NCAA's rules rather than UNC's behavior. He's pretending a technical case and there isn't one there. Other schools have been punished in the past for exactly the sorts of things UNC did. The difference is they got in trouble for one or two cases, whereas UNC had thousands. The enforcement staff bought into the Bilas narrative with the amended NOA, but the COI doesn't have to concur.

[English]

Questions for Jay Bilas:
- what is the predetermined result that the COI has in mind?
- what rules did it violate?
- how will the new ANOA allow the COI to impose its predetermined result?

I'm assuming Bilas has the answers to all of these questions. Because if he doesn't, then his tweet is pretty meaningless.

I wouldn't assume that. Although, when it comes to Jay, I'm sure he's got a long-winded, semantic series of non-answers for all of these questions that boils down to how the NCAA is exploiting young people and some nonsense about NCAA jurisdiction. I'd also love to hear how Jay considers it within the NCAA rules for an ANOA, but somehow after a COI procedural hearing, it's outside the rules for an ANOA. Thanks for weighing in with less than 140 characters, Bilas.

Jay's hollow and vitriolic tweet actually has me more hopeful than any of the other reports and (unconfirmed) sources put together. Just when I think I'm out...

[dahntaysdawg]

Suing the NCAA would give an NCAA lawyer subpoena power to question whoever it wants, and ask them whatever they want under penalty of law. Do you really think UNC wants their entire institution exposed to a real investigation? We're not talking about that clown show of the Martin Report (which Martin himself admitted was a sham). Nor are we talking about the Wainstein Report, which exposed more but was deliberately limited in scope to just AFAM and only over a set period of time, and was constructed to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro. Every investigation conducted thus far has been paid for and executed by UNC themselves, for the purpose of revealing the information they want. The NCAA appears to have not really investigated anything themselves, simply relying on the Wainstein report.

Suing the NCAA and exposing themselves to a completely open, independent investigation is the last thing the CHeats want. Just imagine Crowder, Nyangoro, Boxhill, Walden, even Roy and Bubba being put under oath and made to answer what they know. Hell, imagine Tydreke Powell, Rashaad McCants, Julius Peppers, Fats Thomas, PJ Hairston, etc. being called to the stand. No golden parachutes to stay quiet, no protection from answering what they don't want to. I would spend all day long watching that court proceeding!

Thank you! This answers my question perfectly and I think those proceedings may even be DVR worthy.

[Indoor66]

Suing the NCAA would give an NCAA lawyer subpoena power to question whoever it wants, and ask them whatever they want under penalty of law. Do you really think UNC wants their entire institution exposed to a real investigation? We're not talking about that clown show of the Martin Report (which Martin himself admitted was a sham). Nor are we talking about the Wainstein Report, which exposed more but was deliberately limited in scope to just AFAM and only over a set period of time, and was constructed to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro. Every investigation conducted thus far has been paid for and executed by UNC themselves, for the purpose of revealing the information they want. The NCAA appears to have not really investigated anything themselves, simply relying on the Wainstein report.

Suing the NCAA and exposing themselves to a completely open, independent investigation is the last thing the CHeats want. Just imagine Crowder, Nyangoro, Boxhill, Walden, even Roy and Bubba being put under oath and made to answer what they know. Hell, imagine Tydreke Powell, Rashaad McCants, Julius Peppers, Fats Thomas, PJ Hairston, etc. being called to the stand. No golden parachutes to stay quiet, no protection from answering what they don't want to. I would spend all day long watching that court proceeding!

Hell, I would move to NC to attend the entire proceeding. Probably as entertaining as the Penthouse libel suit in Cheyenne, WY in 1980.

[Tom B.]

Let's not forget the biggest questions for Jay:
- why call out the NCAA and not UNC? Do you understand that they cheated for 20 years? Is that OK with you? Why give them a pass just b/c you hate the NCAA?


That's what I've never understood about Jay's reactions to the UNC case. He's supposedly all about standing up for college athletes to protect them from exploitation -- but what UNC did is some of the most God-awful exploitation you could imagine. UNC made tons of money off its athletes, and didn't even bother to give them the free education that passes for "compensation" under the NCAA's regime. Instead, UNC developed and implemented an institutional program of sham academics to keep its athletes eligible, which left them completely unprepared for life beyond college, then cut them loose once their eligibility was done. That's about as exploitative as you can get -- and many of the athletes being exploited were minority kids from underprivileged backgrounds.

If preventing exploitation of college athletes is your raison d'etre, you should be pissed at UNC and should want them to get hammered. But with Jay, he's seemingly developed such a strong and reflexive anti-NCAA bias that he can't let himself be perceived as being on the same side of anything as the NCAA -- even if the result of his side-choosing is a perversion of what he claims to stand for.

To Jay's credit, he's done a lot to shine light on the NCAA's shortcomings and blind spots, and the ways in which it has facilitated the exploitation of college athletes. But the UNC case doesn't seem to be very strong ground upon which to predicate a further extension of his anti-NCAA jeremiad.

[WiJoe]

That's what I've never understood about Jay's reactions to the UNC case. He's supposedly all about standing up for college athletes to protect them from exploitation -- but what UNC did is some of the most God-awful exploitation you could imagine. UNC made tons of money off its athletes, and didn't even bother to give them the free education that passes for "compensation" under the NCAA's regime. Instead, UNC developed and implemented an institutional program of sham academics to keep its athletes eligible, which left them completely unprepared for life beyond college, then cut them loose once their eligibility was done. That's about as exploitative as you can get -- and many of the athletes being exploited were minority kids from underprivileged backgrounds.

If preventing exploitation of college athletes is your raison d'etre, you should be pissed at UNC and should want them to get hammered. But with Jay, he's seemingly developed such a strong and reflexive anti-NCAA bias that he can't let himself be perceived as being on the same side of anything as the NCAA -- even if the result of his side-choosing is a perversion of what he claims to stand for.

To Jay's credit, he's done a lot to shine light on the NCAA's shortcomings and blind spots, and the ways in which it has facilitated the exploitation of college athletes. But the UNC case doesn't seem to be very strong ground upon which to predicate a further extension of his anti-NCAA jeremiad.

some of Jay's brains must have escaped through that unsightly bald dome of his !!!!

[Trinity_93]

@DukeofHoops tweets:

UNC's gonna have more NOAs than National Titles before it's said and done

but is that counting bakery NOAs?

[BLPOG]

@DukeofHoops tweets:

UNC's gonna have more NOAs than National Titles before it's said and done

but is that counting bakery NOAs?

How many before they can release a "Greatest Cheats" compilation?

[Indoor66]

How many before they can release a "Greatest Cheats" compilation?

I heard they ordered rings for the Athletic Director's office.

[WiJoe]

I'm sure they'll put up a banner! Oops. Maybe not.

:p

[alteran]

I'm sure they'll put up a banner! Oops. Maybe not.

:p

Hopefully they'll have some room to fill.

[Pghdukie]

Maybe they should hang a crying towel.

[hallcity]

How plausible is this theory from an IC Poster:

Just speculating like everyone else, of course, but heres my theory:



We had a negotiated "understanding" that basically took off the table backwards looking penalties (such as banners down and vacated wins) but made no promises on forward looking penalties such as post season bans or loss of scholarships. That was to be hashed out in the "process". Hence the original amended NOA with no impermissible benefits and no mention of names or coaches of major revenue sports. But our contentious response apparently pissed off the COI, who then voided previous "understanding" which in turn required a new ANOA to charge us with the crimes necessary to go backwards as well as forward.

Not plausible. The NCAA has a process for a negotiated settlement that's then presented to the COI for final approval. Obviously, that process wasn't followed here.

[devildeac]

Maybe they should hang a crying towel.

Or, 5 of these:

6975



6974

[kidA]

Seems to me the NCAA was dealing with UNC like I deal with my kid: without telling her what I know, I give her the opportunity to fes up and do the right thing. Given this opportunity, UNC continued to obfuscate and deny and play the smoking mirrors game. UNC failed the honor test, and so now it will be punished. And BTW, when I mete out justice following such a failure, punishment for the failure, essentially lying to cover up the underlying offense, gets added to the punishment for the original thing. I'd prefer an honorable, competitive rival, but UNC seems incapable of being both.

[MarkD83]

This looks like UNC and the NCAA saw that UNC could compete for another NCAA BBall Championship this year and came up with a way to avoid any punishment until after the NCAAs.

[English]

Seems to me the NCAA was dealing with UNC like I deal with my kid: without telling her what I know, I give her the opportunity to fes up and do the right thing. Given this opportunity, UNC continued to obfuscate and deny and play the smoking mirrors game. UNC failed the honor test, and so now it will be punished. And BTW, when I mete out justice following such a failure, punishment for the failure, essentially lying to cover up the underlying offense, gets added to the punishment for the original thing. I'd prefer an honorable, competitive rival, but UNC seems incapable of being both.

6976


That's a great game, but bad for the mirrors' health.

[sammy3469]

I wouldn't assume that. Although, when it comes to Jay, I'm sure he's got a long-winded, semantic series of non-answers for all of these questions that boils down to how the NCAA is exploiting young people and some nonsense about NCAA jurisdiction. I'd also love to hear how Jay considers it within the NCAA rules for an ANOA, but somehow after a COI procedural hearing, it's outside the rules for an ANOA. Thanks for weighing in with less than 140 characters, Bilas.

Jay's hollow and vitriolic tweet actually has me more hopeful than any of the other reports and (unconfirmed) sources put together. Just when I think I'm out...

It's not just that...there is explicit rules for this type of thing in the Internal Operating Procedures of the COI from Bylaw 19.7.7.4. Basically the COI can tell both enforcement and UNC that it believes additional allegations are warranted at which time it shall issue a notice of additional allegations (it's not clear whether this actually resets the NOA clock besides saying UNC will have "a schedule with an opportunity to respond").

This is the reason this is almost certainly bad for UNC as it was put together based on what the COI believes are the current facts in the case (ie based on what enforcement and UNC has already presented to them). The COI is basically telling the parties involved this is how we are going to find without some new exculpatory evidence from UNC and whatever's in the new NOA has a high probability of being the basis for the COI's findings of facts in the case. Basically, at this stage these are allegations in name only with the COI having already decided UNC committed the allegations, but not the penalties (i.e. this is as close as you can get to saying UNC is guilty without the actual disposition of the case).

So if MBB is named in the NOA, you can be pretty sure the COI wants penalties on the MBB program, etc.

[Rich]

6976


That's a great game, but bad for the mirrors' health.


Seems to me the NCAA was dealing with UNC like I deal with my kid: without telling her what I know, I give her the opportunity to fes up and do the right thing. Given this opportunity, UNC continued to obfuscate and deny and play the smoking mirrors game. UNC failed the honor test, and so now it will be punished. And BTW, when I mete out justice following such a failure, punishment for the failure, essentially lying to cover up the underlying offense, gets added to the punishment for the original thing. I'd prefer an honorable, competitive rival, but UNC seems incapable of being both.

Isn't the idiom "smoke and mirrors"?

[kidA]

Isn't the idiom "smoke and mirrors"?

My bad. I think I wrote "smoke n mirrors" and was autocorrected and didn't proof.
Yeah, haters maybe gonna hate, but that doesn't mean UNC isn't hate-worthy.

[BandAlum83]

I really don't know why I open these UNC threads. It seems just more of the same ad nauseum. Will this ever end?

I think the only one ill open in the future will be titled "UNC Penalties for Infractions Announced: 3 Men's BBALL NCAA titles vacated."

[Nugget]

I am of the opinion that the University of North Carolina has managed to:

a) Insult the NCAA COI
b) Piss off the NCAA COI
C) Both a and b ...

I would hope/expect that to be the case. Indeed, this is much like what happened with USC football -- the reason why they got so hammered (in a way that I think conventional wisdom has not come around to accepting was much too harsh) was that USC angered the NCAA by not acting contrite enough, not pleading guilty and forcing the NCAA to a hearing.

UNC has taken actually a more aggressive stance that USC did, with its "lawyering up" focused not just on challenging the specific allegations, but the NCAA's authority to conduct the process. That is a very high risk strategy -- you either have to obtain complete victory (which for a while it looked like UNC was heading towards), or else you may get crushed.

[chrishoke]

I'm not convinced that that this is bad news for UNC - I think it is more likely that the 2nd amended NOA is softer than the 1st NOA.

[TKG]

This looks like UNC and the NCAA saw that UNC could compete for another NCAA BBall Championship this year and came up with a way to avoid any punishment until after the NCAAs.

Bingo!!

[Indoor66]

I'm not convinced that that this is bad news for UNC - I think it is more likely that the 2nd amended NOA is softer than the 1st NOA.

And what is out there to make you think that? The word on the Inside Carolina site is that this iteration on the NOA re-inserts allegations from the original NOA.

[dukelifer]

And what is out there to make you think that? The word on the Inside Carolina site is that this iteration on the NOA re-inserts allegations from the original NOA.

Yes- this is my understanding as well. Basically stronger language. But it resets the clock on everything.

[NYBri]

Wish I could hear ol' roy crying to his manicurist: "this is the greatest tragedy since ..."



Would like to offer public sporks for the manicurist remark. Can't spork directly because "got to spread comments...blah, blah, blah."

[Indoor66]

Yes- this is my understanding as well. Basically stronger language. But it resets the clock on everything.

I, personally, don't care about the clock. It makes no difference. I want the NCAA to look at everything and everybody. Remember than we are talking about reviewing actions and students over a period from about 1988 forward to 2011 or so. That is 23+ years, for crying out loud. A huge job. And roadblocks thrown up at every turn.

Let them get it right. 😈😎

[MarkD83]

Yes- this is my understanding as well. Basically stronger language. But it resets the clock on everything.

The stronger language is the allegations specifically benefited women's bball. Thanks for the 3 month extension

[brevity]

I really don't know why I open these UNC threads. It seems just more of the same ad nauseum. Will this ever end?

I think the only one ill open in the future will be titled "UNC Penalties for Infractions Announced: 3 Men's BBALL NCAA titles vacated."

Other acceptable thread titles...

Chapel Hill (1793-2017)
Roy Williams' Teary Breakdown: "I Knew, and Dean Did Too"
Sheepish Tar Heels Rammed into Oblivion
Frickin' NCAA Shuts Down Frickin' UNC
Carolina Goes to Hell
NCAA Condemns the House That Dean Built
Sean May Eats 730-page NCAA Verdict, Then Learns There Are More Copies
Clemson Men's Basketball Awarded 58 Victories in Chapel Hill by Forfeit

[tbyers11]

Other acceptable thread titles...

Chapel Hill (1793-2017) - Nice succinct epitaph
Roy Williams' Teary Breakdown: "I Knew, and Dean Did Too"
Sheepish Tar Heels Rammed into Oblivion
Frickin' NCAA Shuts Down Frickin' UNC - Totally could be an Onion headline
Carolina Goes to Hell
NCAA Condemns the House That Dean Built
Sean May Eats 730-page NCAA Verdict, Then Learns There Are More Copies - For some reason I can't get enough of "Sean May Eat Me" jokes
Clemson Men's Basketball Awarded 58 Victories in Chapel Hill by Forfeit

Very nice. Can't spork you, but bolded my favorites above

[OldPhiKap]

Other acceptable thread titles...

Chapel Hill (1793-2017)
Roy Williams' Teary Breakdown: "I Knew, and Dean Did Too"
Sheepish Tar Heels Rammed into Oblivion
Frickin' NCAA Shuts Down Frickin' UNC
Carolina Goes to Hell
NCAA Condemns the House That Dean Built
Sean May Eats 730-page NCAA Verdict, Then Learns There Are More Copies
Clemson Men's Basketball Awarded 58 Victories in Chapel Hill by Forfeit

"Must spread love . . . ."

Genius post, brev.

[moonpie23]

is the ncaa(fbi) looking into the emails (NOA) again?

[lotusland]

I am of the opinion that the University of North Carolina has managed to:

a) Insult the NCAA COI
b) Piss off the NCAA COI
C) Both a and b

Of course it is possible that:

d) Bob Green is naïve and guilty of wishful thinking

The bottom line for me is I find this whole situation tiresome and really hope it ends soon. How long is it going to take the NCAA to make a decision? Carolina athletics need to be nuked back to the stone age or let go with slap on the wrist. Just do it!

I would like it to never end.

[OldPhiKap]

Roy at post-game presser:

“... I’d hoped the NCAA thing would be over with before I retired. Now I’m hoping it’ll be over with before I die."

[CameronBornAndBred]

Roy at post-game presser:

“... I’d hoped the NCAA thing would be over with before I retired. Now I’m hoping it’ll be over with before I die."

Apparently his bosses disagree. (And I'm assuming they wish him a long life.)

[BLPOG]

Roy at post-game presser:

“... I’d hoped the NCAA thing would be over with before I retired. Now I’m hoping it’ll be over with before I die."

Real quote, or fantasy quote?

[OldPhiKap]

Real quote, or fantasy quote?

Real per Ben Sherman at IC. Did not see it though.

IC link, at your own risk: http://www.scout.com/college/north-carolina/forums/1410-basketball/15258808-roy-williams-on-new-noa

[lotusland]

Questions for Jay Bilas:
- what is the predetermined result that the COI has in mind?
- what rules did it violate?
- how will the new ANOA allow the COI to impose its predetermined result?

I'm assuming Bilas has the answers to all of these questions. Because if he doesn't, then his tweet is pretty meaningless.

Meaningless tweets are in vogue this year. Sad.

[Olympic Fan]

I was disappointed to hear during the UNC-UNI broadcast that Fran Fraschilla, doing color, talked about the scandal ... but only to express his sympathy for poor Roy Williams, who's had to endure this long, drawn out process. He blasted the NCAA for taking so long, not appreciating that it's UNC that has strong this out.

[ricks68]

,6972

This Crustie is going to try to explain what the above post appears to imply, IMHO, to the whippersnappers around here, and it ain't good for our side. IMVHO, we anti-Cheaters are apparently represented by Charlie Brown, and know that Lucy (who apparently represents the NCAA) is going to do just what she always does when Charlie Brown tries to kick the ball. So, no matter what we all are hoping will happen in this case, it more than likely will just be a repeat of what has happened in the past.

Kudos to gus for a fantastic analogy!:cool: (Hope I got it right, as it would be embarrassing if I didn't.:o)

Just this once, however, Lucy. Pleeeeeeeease.:mad:

ricks

[ricks68]

I refuse to take the bait again. Wake me up if and when this finally ends.

Me, too. (Refer to previous post of Lucy picture by gus.) Rats!:rolleyes:

ricks

[ricks68]

Other acceptable thread titles...

Chapel Hill (1793-2017)
Roy Williams' Teary Breakdown: "I Knew, and Dean Did Too"
Sheepish Tar Heels Rammed into Oblivion
Frickin' NCAA Shuts Down Frickin' UNC
Carolina Goes to Hell
NCAA Condemns the House That Dean Built
Sean May Eats 730-page NCAA Verdict, Then Learns There Are More Copies
Clemson Men's Basketball Awarded 58 Victories in Chapel Hill by Forfeit

Needed to be repeated, IMO. Excellent stuff here.

ricks

[PackMan97]

Roy at post-game presser:

“... I’d hoped the NCAA thing would be over with before I retired. Now I’m hoping it’ll be over with before I die."

I find that deal acceptable

[wsb3]

I have followed this story for way too long. I have thought they were going to get hammered to thinking last year nothing was happening to them. I don't know what to believe the ultimate outcome/punishment might be.

I did hope that there might come a place & time when the NCAA finally got angry at their arrogance. Perhaps that has occurred.

I also have chuckled at the Heels fans that want to sue. Yes please put Crowder on the stand. Put them all on the stand under the penalty of perjury if they don't tell the truth.

Lord knows only Tar Heel fans could see their school as a victim in all this.

One of the many things I love about Duke is the fan base (most of it) Most comments I have read here & elsewhere about Grayson is he was wrong. If a UNC player did the same thing I am pretty sure the majority of the fan base would make excuses.

The one thing I have been dead wrong about is I thought I knew UNC fans that would be appalled to discover that players were kept eligible with fake classes. Particularly those that make their living in education. Sadly that has not been the case.

[JTH]

From the David Glenn show this AM

BREAKING: @NCAA revised NOA to @UNC:
1-reinstates 'extra benefit' charge
2-specifies FB & MBB
3-expands timeline (now fall 2002-summer 2011)

I would not say this is official word, but probably of some interest anyway.

[hallcity]

David Glenn Show ‏@DavidGlennShow 38m38 minutes ago

BREAKING: @NCAA revised NOA to @UNC:
1-reinstates 'extra benefit' charge
2-specifies FB & MBB
3-expands timeline (now fall 2002-summer 2011)

[Ballboy1998]

From the David Glenn show this AM

BREAKING: @NCAA revised NOA to @UNC:
1-reinstates 'extra benefit' charge
2-specifies FB & MBB
3-expands timeline (now fall 2002-summer 2011)

I would not say this is official word, but probably of some interest anyway.

Man do I hope this is accurate. Now our buddy Bilas (who I actually do have a huge amount of respect for in most cases) can tweet up a storm raging against Grayson and the NCAA while conveniently ignoring the 20+ years the heels intentionally cheated their student-athletes and their competition in contravention of both the NCAA and University missions simply to gain an advantage.

[OldPhiKap]

I have followed this story for way too long. I have thought they were going to get hammered to thinking last year nothing was happening to them. I don't know what to believe the ultimate outcome/punishment might be.

I did hope that there might come a place & time when the NCAA finally got angry at their arrogance. Perhaps that has occurred.

I also have chuckled at the Heels fans that want to sue. Yes please put Crowder on the stand. Put them all on the stand under the penalty of perjury if they don't tell the truth.

Lord knows only Tar Heel fans could see their school as a victim in all this.

One of the many things I love about Duke is the fan base (most of it) Most comments I have read here & elsewhere about Grayson is he was wrong. If a UNC player did the same thing I am pretty sure the majority of the fan base would make excuses.

The one thing I have been dead wrong about is I thought I knew UNC fans that would be appalled to discover that players were kept eligible with fake classes. Particularly those that make their living in education. Sadly that has not been the case.

The UNC Alum I know, including a few that were scholar-athletes, are appalled. The folks whose only connection with UNC is as a fan have a different interest and thus a different perspective.


From the David Glenn show this AM

BREAKING: @NCAA revised NOA to @UNC:
1-reinstates 'extra benefit' charge
2-specifies FB & MBB
3-expands timeline (now fall 2002-summer 2011)

I would not say this is official word, but probably of some interest anyway.

From his keyboard to God's ear . . . .

[sagegrouse]

I also have chuckled at the Heels fans that want to sue. Yes please put Crowder on the stand. Put them all on the stand under the penalty of perjury if they don't tell the truth.

Yes, and tell the judge that, while UNC's signed membership agreement commits the school to abide by the disciplinary procedures of the NCAA, UNC (a) had its fingers crossed behind its back or (b) didn't read the agreement and, therefore, is not bound by it.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I was disappointed to hear during the UNC-UNI broadcast that Fran Fraschilla, doing color, talked about the scandal ... but only to express his sympathy for poor Roy Williams, who's had to endure this long, drawn out process. He blasted the NCAA for taking so long, not appreciating that it's UNC that has strong this out.

Wow, that's like saying he feels horrible that Nixon had to deal with the Watergate investigation.

Best part of the referenced tweets above? After sifting through the GA news this morning, there is a smile on my face once again.

[wsb3]

The UNC Alum I know, including a few that were scholar-athletes, are appalled. The folks whose only connection with UNC is as a fan have a different interest and thus a different perspective.

I am glad that has been your experience. It has not been mine. That includes UNC alum.. & again many of which serve in education. Some as teachers. Some as principals & everything in between. Right now I can't recall one fan or alum that has done anything but make excuses.

[sammy3469]

Here's the Amended Amended NOA. Let's just say, the NCAA's argument is what many have always wanted

https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/NCAA-third-notice-of-allegations.pdf

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/carolina-comments-on-releases-ncaas-third-notice-of-allegations/

Let's just say Sankey is having none of it.

[PackMan97]

Here's the Amended Amended NOA. Let's just say, the NCAA's argument is what many have always wanted

https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/NCAA-third-notice-of-allegations.pdf

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/carolina-comments-on-releases-ncaas-third-notice-of-allegations/

Let's just say Sankey is having none of it.

6979

[BD80]

Here's the Amended Amended NOA. Let's just say, the NCAA's argument is what many have always wanted

https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/NCAA-third-notice-of-allegations.pdf

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/carolina-comments-on-releases-ncaas-third-notice-of-allegations/

Let's just say Sankey is having none of it.

A Merry Christmas to us all!

[sammy3469]

So it looks like they included Roy Williams interview F113 in the factual information. That seems to be new.

[devildeac]

A Merry Christmas to us all!

And to all a rousing chorus of GTHc, GTH.

[Troublemaker]

Indeed, this is much like what happened with USC football -- the reason why they got so hammered (in a way that I think conventional wisdom has not come around to accepting was much too harsh) was that USCangered the NCAA by not acting contrite enough, not pleading guilty and forcing the NCAA to a hearing.

UNC has taken actually a more aggressive stance that USC did, with its "lawyering up" focused not just on challenging the specific allegations, but the NCAA's authority to conduct the process. That is a very high risk strategy -- you either have to obtain complete victory (which for a while it looked like UNC was heading towards), or else you may get crushed.

This is just delicious. I had stopped following the case closely (and had pretty much given up hope) after the amended NOA. It looks like UNC got themselves a 3rd NOA and into deep trouble again because of how arrogant they and their legal team acted following the amended NOA. Do I have that pretty much right? UNC could have skated by acting contrite and not fighting the amended NOA?

[Indoor66]

Page 18 lists Roy Williams as an "individual who may have been mentioned."

[Tom B.]

This is just delicious. I had stopped following the case closely (and had pretty much given up hope) after the amended NOA. It looks like UNC got themselves a 3rd NOA and into deep trouble again because of how arrogant they and their legal team acted following the amended NOA. Do I have that pretty much right? UNC could have skated by acting contrite and not fighting the amended NOA?

After the amended NOA, the conventional wisdom seemed to be that UNC probably could negotiate a penalty involving some probation and a fine, and maybe some program-specific penalties for women's basketball -- but no banners would come down, and neither football nor men's basketball would suffer any program-specific penalties (i.e., no scholarship losses, no vacated wins, etc.). So it's probably not accurate to say UNC could have "skated," but they likely could've gotten off a lot easier.

[UrinalCake]

So it looks like they included Roy Williams interview F113 in the factual information. That seems to be new.

I saw that and noticed that the interview is dated 12/4/2014, which I believe is a couple months after the Wainstein Report was released and probably about the time the NCAA announced they were reopening their investigation. Sure would like to know what's in that transcript.

Also, the Wainstein Report is listed in the factual information - if I remember correctly, it was included in the original NOA but absent from the amended NOA. So now they've put it back in.

The major change that I see after a quick read is the re-inclusion of football and men's basketball as being called out in allegation 1. They did not the impermissible benefits charge back in, but continue to use failure to monitor as their basis for LOIC in allegation 5. Allegation 2 still targets Boxhill as providing extra benefits to the women's basketball team, while allegations 3 and 4 are for Crowder and Nyangaro failing to cooperate.

So overall I think this brings us pretty close to the original NOA. I think UNC's strategy in hiring Wainstein to do his invesgtigation was to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro, then make sure those two don't say anything to the NCAA. They knew they would get hit with two level 1 charges for failure to cooperate, but they could live with that as it won't directly target specific sports or athletes. There is so much more that they are guilty of, but since the NCAA is only using the Wainstein Report and apparently not doing any investigating of their own, the scope remains limited.

What the punishment will be is anyone's guess. It certainly seems like the notion of the 2005 and 2009 banners coming down is back on the table at this point, but I won't be surprised by anything.

[Troublemaker]

After the amended NOA, the conventional wisdom seemed to be that UNC probably could negotiate a penalty involving some probation and a fine, and maybe some program-specific penalties for women's basketball -- but no banners would come down, and neither football nor men's basketball would suffer any program-specific penalties (i.e., no scholarship losses, no vacated wins, etc.). So it's probably not accurate to say UNC could have "skated," but they likely could've gotten off a lot easier.

Thank you for the explanation! Like I said, delicious. UNC's arrogance and inability to even accept the amended NOA might end up leading to much greater penalties. I am smiling.

[uh_no]

looks like the krampus is coming for carolina this year

[Tom B.]

I think my favorite part is footnote 1:


The enforcement staff believes the allegations in this notice meet two exceptions to the statute of limitations in NCAA Bylaw 19.5.11. First, the factual information indicates a pattern of willful violations that began before and continued into the four-year period. Second, the factual information indicates a blatant disregard for the NCAA's fundamental extra-benefit and ethical conduct bylaws [and the enforcement staff satisfied the conditions identified in Bylaw 19.5.11-(c)].

(Emphasis added.)

[MarkD83]

I saw that and noticed that the interview is dated 12/4/2014, which I believe is a couple months after the Wainstein Report was released and probably about the time the NCAA announced they were reopening their investigation. Sure would like to know what's in that transcript.

Also, the Wainstein Report is listed in the factual information - if I remember correctly, it was included in the original NOA but absent from the amended NOA. So now they've put it back in.

The major change that I see after a quick read is the re-inclusion of football and men's basketball as being called out in allegation 1. They did not the impermissible benefits charge back in, but continue to use failure to monitor as their basis for LOIC in allegation 5. Allegation 2 still targets Boxhill as providing extra benefits to the women's basketball team, while allegations 3 and 4 are for Crowder and Nyangaro failing to cooperate.

So overall I think this brings us pretty close to the original NOA. I think UNC's strategy in hiring Wainstein to do his invesgtigation was to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro, then make sure those two don't say anything to the NCAA. They knew they would get hit with two level 1 charges for failure to cooperate, but they could live with that as it won't directly target specific sports or athletes. There is so much more that they are guilty of, but since the NCAA is only using the Wainstein Report and apparently not doing any investigating of their own, the scope remains limited.

What the punishment will be is anyone's guess. It certainly seems like the notion of the 2005 and 2009 banners coming down is back on the table at this point, but I won't be surprised by anything.

However, allegation 1 now clearly states "in violation of extra benefits" rules and also states specifically these violations were used to keep football players and men's basketball players academically eligible.

I wish I could cut and paste from the PDF. The actual wording is not that far into the NOA so there is no getting around that football and men's basketball are named and it does affect eligibility.

[El_Diablo]

I saw that and noticed that the interview is dated 12/4/2014, which I believe is a couple months after the Wainstein Report was released and probably about the time the NCAA announced they were reopening their investigation. Sure would like to know what's in that transcript.

Also, the Wainstein Report is listed in the factual information - if I remember correctly, it was included in the original NOA but absent from the amended NOA. So now they've put it back in.

The major change that I see after a quick read is the re-inclusion of football and men's basketball as being called out in allegation 1. They did not the impermissible benefits charge back in, but continue to use failure to monitor as their basis for LOIC in allegation 5. Allegation 2 still targets Boxhill as providing extra benefits to the women's basketball team, while allegations 3 and 4 are for Crowder and Nyangaro failing to cooperate.

So overall I think this brings us pretty close to the original NOA. I think UNC's strategy in hiring Wainstein to do his invesgtigation was to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro, then make sure those two don't say anything to the NCAA. They knew they would get hit with two level 1 charges for failure to cooperate, but they could live with that as it won't directly target specific sports or athletes. There is so much more that they are guilty of, but since the NCAA is only using the Wainstein Report and apparently not doing any investigating of their own, the scope remains limited.

What the punishment will be is anyone's guess. It certainly seems like the notion of the 2005 and 2009 banners coming down is back on the table at this point, but I won't be surprised by anything.

I just skimmed it but disagree with the bolded part. Allegation 1 indeed cites extra benefits (in the lead in, 1.a. and 1.b.) and confirms that this allegation serves as part of the basis for the LOIC charge in allegation 5.

[sammy3469]

I saw that and noticed that the interview is dated 12/4/2014, which I believe is a couple months after the Wainstein Report was released and probably about the time the NCAA announced they were reopening their investigation. Sure would like to know what's in that transcript.

Also, the Wainstein Report is listed in the factual information - if I remember correctly, it was included in the original NOA but absent from the amended NOA. So now they've put it back in.

The major change that I see after a quick read is the re-inclusion of football and men's basketball as being called out in allegation 1. They did not the impermissible benefits charge back in, but continue to use failure to monitor as their basis for LOIC in allegation 5. Allegation 2 still targets Boxhill as providing extra benefits to the women's basketball team, while allegations 3 and 4 are for Crowder and Nyangaro failing to cooperate.

So overall I think this brings us pretty close to the original NOA. I think UNC's strategy in hiring Wainstein to do his invesgtigation was to pin everything on Crowder and Nyangoro, then make sure those two don't say anything to the NCAA. They knew they would get hit with two level 1 charges for failure to cooperate, but they could live with that as it won't directly target specific sports or athletes. There is so much more that they are guilty of, but since the NCAA is only using the Wainstein Report and apparently not doing any investigating of their own, the scope remains limited.

What the punishment will be is anyone's guess. It certainly seems like the notion of the 2005 and 2009 banners coming down is back on the table at this point, but I won't be surprised by anything.

This is actually much more powerful than the original NOA. Just some other notable differences:

That one relied on this whole academic/athletic designation and put the extra benefits as having come from ASPSA counselors (i.e. it doesn't really address the fake classes). This one basically rolls the entire scheme up and says that is the extra benefit.
In addition, it rolls the "institution" as a whole into exploiting the system
It also directly says these courses were used to maintain eligibility (previous one didn't)
The LOIC charge is much, much tougher from the original NOA...basically saying the institution had the chance to stop the entire scheme not just the abuse by ASPSA counselors, but turned a blind eye.


Just a note, Williams interview was in the original NOA, but not the ANOA with the following description:


This includes, but is not limited to, R.Williams' concern about the number of men's basketball student-athletes majoring in AFRI/AFAM.

[Stray Gator]

. . . The major change that I see after a quick read is the re-inclusion of football and men's basketball as being called out in allegation 1. They did not the impermissible benefits charge back in, but continue to use failure to monitor as their basis for LOIC in allegation 5. . . .

Actually, as I read the new amended NOA, the enforcement staff is alleging impermissible benefits by asserting in paragraphs 1a and 1b that Crowder and Nyang'oro facilitated "special arrangements to student-athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation." Moreover, the revised NOA specifically rejects the premise that the benefits were not violations simply because the courses were open to the general student population, on the ground that the athletes were afforded a number of special benefits and privileges with respect to enrollment, course assignments, submission of work, and grading that were not available to the general students. Finally, it should be noted that the new NOA contains a footnote on page 1 expressly rejecting UNC's statute of limitations defense on two grounds -- the "pattern of willful violations" exception, and perhaps more significantly, because "the factual information indicates a blatant disregard for the NCAA's fundamental extra-benefit and ethical conduct bylaws . . .."

We may never know exactly who or what prompted this decision to restore some provisions of the original NOA. But I'd be surprised if the decision to reassert them isn't largely attributable to the fact that UNC responded to the amended, more lenient NOA in the most insolent and disrespectful manner conceivable -- dispensing with any effort to address the substance of the alleged misconduct, and instead contesting the NCAA's very authority to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over the use of the fraudulent course scheme to benefit student-athletes.

At this point we can only speculate, but it does seem plausible to suppose that the prior amended NOA was the product of negotiations by UNC representatives (some of whom, as I recall, are former NCAA staffers) with members of the NCAA enforcement staff (some of whom, as I recall, have longstanding connections with UNC). For whatever reasons, the NCAA enforcement staff agreed to remove the specific allegations of impermissible benefits to football and men's basketball; but I strongly suspect that there was an understanding by the enforcement staff that UNC would in turn respond by admitting to at least some of the allegations and accepting some penalties, which the NCAA staff would recommend be approved by the COI. When UNC had the audacity to spit in the NCAA's face, however, any friends that UNC had on the enforcement staff could no longer sell a softened stance, either to other staff members or to the COI.

In light of the fact that this revised NOA characterizes UNC's course of conduct by using such value-laden terms as "blatant disregard" for the NCAA's bylaws, I seriously doubt that UNC's representatives who ultimately appear at the hearing can expect a cordial reception from either the enforcement staff or the members of the Committee.

[OldPhiKap]

Actually, as I read the new amended NOA, the enforcement staff is alleging impermissible benefits by asserting in paragraphs 1a and 1b that Crowder and Nyang'oro facilitated "special arrangements to student-athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation." Moreover, the revised NOA specifically rejects the premise that the benefits were not violations simply because the courses were open to the general student population, on the ground that the athletes were afforded a number of special benefits and privileges with respect to enrollment, course assignments, submission of work, and grading that were not available to the general students. Finally, it should be noted that the new NOA contains a footnote on page 1 expressly rejecting UNC's statute of limitations defense on two grounds -- the "pattern of willful violations" exception, and perhaps more significantly, because "the factual information indicates a blatant disregard for the NCAA's fundamental extra-benefit and ethical conduct bylaws . . .."

We may never know exactly who or what prompted this decision to restore some provisions of the original NOA. But I'd be surprised if the decision to reassert them isn't largely attributable to the fact that UNC responded to the amended, more lenient NOA in the most insolent and disrespectful manner conceivable -- dispensing with any effort to address the substance of the alleged misconduct, and instead contesting the NCAA's very authority to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over the use of the fraudulent course scheme to benefit student-athletes.

At this point we can only speculate, but it does seem plausible to suppose that the prior amended NOA was the product of negotiations by UNC representatives (some of whom, as I recall, are former NCAA staffers) with members of the NCAA enforcement staff (some of whom, as I recall, have longstanding connections with UNC). For whatever reasons, the NCAA enforcement staff agreed to remove the specific allegations of impermissible benefits to football and men's basketball; but I strongly suspect that there was an understanding by the enforcement staff that UNC would in turn respond by admitting to at least some of the allegations and accepting some penalties, which the NCAA staff would recommend be approved by the COI. When UNC had the audacity to spit in the NCAA's face, however, any friends that UNC had on the enforcement staff could no longer sell a softened stance, either to other staff members or to the COI.

In light of the fact that this revised NOA characterizes UNC's course of conduct by using such value-laden terms as "blatant disregard" for the NCAA's bylaws, I seriously doubt that UNC's representatives who ultimately appear at the hearing can expect a cordial reception from either the enforcement staff or the members of the Committee.

I have never found that pissing off the judge is a wise tactical move. But I don't bill at as high a rate as UNC's lawyers so what do I know. Just a country lawyer, slinging my bag from town to town . . . .

[MChambers]

However, allegation 1 now clearly states "in violation of extra benefits" rules and also states specifically these violations were used to keep football players and men's basketball players academically eligible.

I wish I could cut and paste from the PDF. The actual wording is not that far into the NOA so there is no getting around that football and men's basketball are named and it does affect eligibility.

I've downloaded the pdf and run it through the OCR feature in Acrobat Professional, then saved in a public folder in Dropbox. If I've done this right (at best a 50/50 proposition), here's a link to a version where you can search the words in the NOA. Should also be able to copy text:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8j35sidytwxoh3s/NCAA-third-notice-of-allegations-1.pdf?dl=0

[Papa John]

I have never found that pissing off the judge is a wise tactical move. But I don't bill at as high a rate as UNC's lawyers so what do I know. Just a country lawyer, slinging my bag from town to town . . . .

It sounds like there’s a song in there somewhere... Perhaps Warren Zevon or Dusty Springfield, or some odd amalgamation? “Send lawyers, flacks, and money”? “OPK was the son of a lawyer man”?

Forgot one of the potential song influences above... Motley Crüe (“Pissing of the Judge” akin to “Smokin’ in the Boys Room”)...

[WWBD]

Actually, as I read the new amended NOA, the enforcement staff is alleging impermissible benefits by asserting in paragraphs 1a and 1b that Crowder and Nyang'oro facilitated "special arrangements to student-athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation." Moreover, the revised NOA specifically rejects the premise that the benefits were not violations simply because the courses were open to the general student population, on the ground that the athletes were afforded a number of special benefits and privileges with respect to enrollment...

This is exactly right. They mention that the sheer number of athletes enrolled in those courses indicates an imperssible benefit. They then go on to say that taking those classes allowed certain athletes to maintain eligibility.

In other words, they're WANKERed.

[UrinalCake]

We may never know exactly who or what prompted this decision to restore some provisions of the original NOA. But I'd be surprised if the decision to reassert them isn't largely attributable to the fact that UNC responded to the amended, more lenient NOA in the most insolent and disrespectful manner conceivable -- dispensing with any effort to address the substance of the alleged misconduct, and instead contesting the NCAA's very authority to exercise disciplinary jurisdiction over the use of the fraudulent course scheme to benefit student-athletes.

There has to be more to it than that. The NCAA knows that their final ruling will be pored over with a fine-toothed comb in search of any errors or inconsistencies. They know that UNC is going to challenge their ruling regardless, so they need to make sure it is airtight. So it wouldn't make sense for them to push out a new ANOA simply out of spite. They have to be able to defend their actions. So I think there must have been some new information that came out between April and today. Either that or it was an issue of the NCAA's Enforcement Staff negotiating things with UNC, but the Committee of Infractions (which is a separate group) was not part of that and is interpreting the same information very differently.




At this point we can only speculate, but it does seem plausible to suppose that the prior amended NOA was the product of negotiations by UNC representatives (some of whom, as I recall, are former NCAA staffers) with members of the NCAA enforcement staff (some of whom, as I recall, have longstanding connections with UNC). For whatever reasons, the NCAA enforcement staff agreed to remove the specific allegations of impermissible benefits to football and men's basketball; but I strongly suspect that there was an understanding by the enforcement staff that UNC would in turn respond by admitting to at least some of the allegations and accepting some penalties, which the NCAA staff would recommend be approved by the COI. When UNC had the audacity to spit in the NCAA's face, however, any friends that UNC had on the enforcement staff could no longer sell a softened stance, either to other staff members or to the COI.

My understanding was that after the first NOA was issued, UNC lawyered up even more than they already had and basically bullied the NCAA into believing there was no way their allegations would hold up to appeal. But this is all just hearsay. It does seem reasonable to assume there was negotiations between the CHeats and the NCAA, and in fact I think Emmert even issued a statement around the time of March Madness that said he was working "WITH" UNC (which caused much consternation on the message boards). So I agree that those negotiations, perhaps in conjunction with the influence of UNC's high-priced lawyers, led to the softer, amended NOA. How exactly those negotiations broke down to get us back to where we are now is anyone's guess.

[Indoor66]

It sounds like there’s a song in there somewhere... Perhaps Warren Zevon or Dusty Springfield, or some odd amalgamation? “Send lawyers, flacks, and money”? “OPK was the son of a lawyer man”?

Forgot one of the potential song influences above... Motley Crüe (“Pissing of the Judge” akin to “Smokin’ in the Boys Room”)...

If we want a new song we need to resurrect The Man in Black; he had much experience with the Judge ....

[MarkD83]

I've downloaded the pdf and run it through the OCR feature in Acrobat Professional, then saved in a public folder in Dropbox. If I've done this right (at best a 50/50 proposition), here's a link to a version where you can search the words in the NOA. Should also be able to copy text:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8j35sidytwxoh3s/NCAA-third-notice-of-allegations-1.pdf?dl=0

In rereading this NOA it is much clearer than the other two and looks like the NCAA made a point of taking all of the previous UNC arguments and specifically adding language to negate them.

[jacone21]

It sounds like there’s a song in there somewhere... Perhaps Warren Zevon or Dusty Springfield, or some odd amalgamation? “Send lawyers, flacks, and money”? “OPK was the son of a lawyer man”?

Forgot one of the potential song influences above... Motley Crüe (“Pissing of the Judge” akin to “Smokin’ in the Boys Room”)...

"I saw Mark Emmert drinking a pina colada at The Crunkleton.
His hair was perfect."

[sammy3469]

There has to be more to it than that. The NCAA knows that their final ruling will be pored over with a fine-toothed comb in search of any errors or inconsistencies. They know that UNC is going to challenge their ruling regardless, so they need to make sure it is airtight. So it wouldn't make sense for them to push out a new ANOA simply out of spite. They have to be able to defend their actions. So I think there must have been some new information that came out between April and today. Either that or it was an issue of the NCAA's Enforcement Staff negotiating things with UNC, but the Committee of Infractions (which is a separate group) was not part of that and is interpreting the same information very differently.



This is all Sankey telling enforcement and ergo Emmert to go back to the drawing board. In one of the letters, Sankey makes reference to their admission to SACS that they committed academic fraud. As the presumptive next NCAA President, he doesn't want to be facing the lawsuits already in the pipe on "amateurism" with him being the COI Head who let UNC off easy for academic fraud. This is all Sankey saving his and the SECs bacon in future years. UNC's big mistake in all this was believing Emmert was the biggest power broker in the NCAA. It's always been Sankey and they forgot that fact.

[BLPOG]

There is so much more that they are guilty of, but since the NCAA is only using the Wainstein Report and apparently not doing any investigating of their own, the scope remains limited.

The NCAA did conduct additional investigation, but we do not know the scope or scale because UNC refuses to release the documentation. At a minimum, it includes additional interviews with several parties of interest.

[WWBD]

I don't know how to link images from my phone, but in the COI's document to UNC dated 11/29/16, they said they intended to look into some of the men's basketball and football matters "whether they are included in a past or future NOA or not." In other words, the enforcement committee didn't want to look powerless and decided to be the ones to look tough since COI said they would anyway.

[WWBD]

Basically, Sankey (head of the COI and also the SEC commish) smelled something fishy just like the rest of us when the amended NOA removed the "impermissible benefits" allegation. But he was in a position to do something about it. He asked the enforcement committee to provide evidence in support of their decision to amend, they got scared (how can you defend a back room, off the record arrangement with evidence?) and quickly went back to their original position.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Basically, Sankey (head of the COI and also the SEC commish) smelled something fishy just like the rest of us when the amended NOA removed the "impermissible benefits" allegation. But he was in a position to do something about it. He asked the enforcement committee to provide evidence in support of their decision to amend, they got scared (how can you defend a back room, off the record arrangement with evidence?) and quickly went back to their original position.
Actually,by extending the timeline back to 2002, they went beyond their original position and gave the middle finger to the cheats.

[Owen Meany]

There has to be more to it than that. The NCAA knows that their final ruling will be pored over with a fine-toothed comb in search of any errors or inconsistencies. They know that UNC is going to challenge their ruling regardless, so they need to make sure it is airtight. So it wouldn't make sense for them to push out a new ANOA simply out of spite. They have to be able to defend their actions. So I think there must have been some new information that came out between April and today. Either that or it was an issue of the NCAA's Enforcement Staff negotiating things with UNC, but the Committee of Infractions (which is a separate group) was not part of that and is interpreting the same information very differently.

.

I believe the ANOA was so weak not because the NCAA had no case, but because UNC and its lawyers used their connections,etc to "plea bargain" down to lesser offenses. They were given a sweetheart deal and expected to gladly accept their lenient punishment and go away. Its hard to imagine the NCAA presenting the ANOA without some sort or tacit acknowledgement that UNC would accept the findings and go away. Amazingly, UNC seems to have brokered an agreement, got the much reduced ANOA in writing and then said "Screw you NCAA" by filing a response that not only did not accept their findings, but basically challenged the NCAA's very reason for existence. This was an incredible display of chutzpah on UNC's behalf that would seem to be more appropriate for a message board fanboy than for a practicing lawyer. I cannot imagine who gave them this advice. As a layman, I thought it was a huge risk at the time, with minimal reward.

UNC seemed to flaunt the NCAA's (perceived) powerlessness at a time when they should have been pleading for mercy. Williams and Fedora told recruits football and basketball were in the clear well before the revised ANOA was released. Fedora brought in questionable hires in the middle of all this, and flipped a recruit whose brother said he would have a spot on the basketball team. The "Count of Monte Cristo" fooled and taunted opposing fans with an elaborate ruse that clearly showed he was a UNC insider who had access to the revised ANOA well before it was released. It was all a giant middle finger to the NCAA and anyone who had worked with them to mitigate their punishment. It seems to me that someone at the NCAA has had enough and decided to reinstate the previous charges, which were valid to begin with.

Its too early to say anything in this on-going saga, but it does appear at least possible that UNC may end up hoisted by its own petard.

[dahntaysdawg]

Actually,by extending the timeline back to 2002, they went beyond their original position and gave the middle finger to the cheats.

The bright side is there are only 8 wins to vacate that year. Not nearly as bad as what could be vacated from the later years.

[OldPhiKap]

It sounds like there’s a song in there somewhere... Perhaps Warren Zevon or Dusty Springfield, or some odd amalgamation? “Send lawyers, flacks, and money”? “OPK was the son of a lawyer man”?

Forgot one of the potential song influences above... Motley Crüe (“Pissing of the Judge” akin to “Smokin’ in the Boys Room”)...


"I saw Mark Emmert drinking a pina colada at The Crunkleton.
His hair was perfect."

I do NOT want to meet Sylvia's or Roy's tailor. Let's just get that on the record now.

[OldPhiKap]

The bright side is there are only 8 wins to vacate that year. Not nearly as bad as what could be vacated from the later years.

So -- they had to cheat to win EIGHT games?!?


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

[OldPhiKap]

ESPN take, and Bubba fighting back:

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/18333496/north-carolina-tar-heels-again-face-ncaa-extra-benefits-charge-academic-case

[SCMatt33]

The bright side is there are only 8 wins to vacate that year. Not nearly as bad as what could be vacated from the later years.

Just to clarify this, the new NOA goes back to fall of 2002, so their 8 wins in 2001-02 are perfectly safe, which I'm sure is a great relief to all UNC fans.

[dahntaysdawg]

Just to clarify this, the new NOA goes back to fall of 2002, so their 8 wins in 2001-02 are perfectly safe, which I'm sure is a great relief to all UNC fans.

"Eight is enough"

[Doria]

ESPN take, and Bubba fighting back:

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/18333496/north-carolina-tar-heels-again-face-ncaa-extra-benefits-charge-academic-case

Hahaha, arguing that they're being unfairly persecuted because there is a "standard [they] are held to and [they] expect to live by those as well," is rich. Can't believe he dictated any opinion about standards with a straight face. I sure didn't have one when I read it.

[OldPhiKap]

Just to clarify this, the new NOA goes back to fall of 2002, so their 8 wins in 2001-02 are perfectly safe, which I'm sure is a great relief to all UNC fans.

Fall of '02 to Spring of '11 could vacate 244 wins potentially (225 by Roy, 19 from Doh!). Roy's record at UNC would be 151-110 with 225 "others"

[CameronBornAndBred]

I love how the tone of Carolina's response seems to be "we can't believe the NCAA keeps dragging this out."

That's special.

[FerryFor50]

I love how the tone of Carolina's response seems to be "we can't believe the NCAA keeps dragging this out."

That's special.

I tend to agree with them.

Deliver sanctions sooner than later.

[moonpie23]

this is the only thread that makes me happy today....


well, and UK losing...

but those are the only two....

[OldPhiKap]

this is the only thread that makes me happy today...


well, and UK losing...

but those are the only two...

How about fanatical devotion to the Pope?

[CameronBornAndBred]

I tend to agree with them.

Deliver sanctions sooner than later.

It ain't the NCAA dragging this out...

[FerryFor50]

It ain't the NCAA dragging this out...

True. But the NCAA could probably say, "yeah, we're done here. You get a sanction! And you get a sanction!"

[OldPhiKap]

True. But the NCAA could probably say, "yeah, we're done here. You get a sanction! And you get a sanction!"

"I'll take 'if Oprah ran the NCAA' for $200, Alex"

[Indoor66]

I have said this before and will say it again: the NCAA will render a monumental punishment here. Hundreds of wins vacated across many sports and many banners - from '02 to '11 - vacated.

[Tom B.]

Dan Kane: Latest NCAA allegations against UNC broaden the scope of potential penalties (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article122420449.html)

He cuts right to the chase on the BS of Bubba's "procedural" argument:


UNC Athletic Director Bubba Cunningham said in a news conference that the university would fight the new allegations. He called the process unfair, and said the infractions committee had overstepped its bounds by encouraging the enforcement staff to consider filing a third notice after the hearing.

“You can’t chase things just because you have an opinion,” Cunningham said. “You’ve got to follow the bylaws.”

The committee has the latitude under NCAA bylaws to add or subtract violations based on the evidence, and has done so in past cases.

(Emphasis added.)

And Luke DeCock says what everyone is thinking -- that UNC caught a break with the watered-down ANOA, but instead of accepting the gift and putting the episode in the rearview mirror, they got greedy and poked the bear (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article122482169.html).

[OldPhiKap]

And Luke DeCock says what everyone is thinking -- that UNC caught a break with the watered-down ANOA, but instead of accepting the gift and putting the episode in the rearview mirror, they got greedy and poked the bear (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article122482169.html).

Pigs get fat.
Hogs gets slaughtered.

Guess that works for sheep too.

[Skitzle]

So the TLDR of this thread is:

1) Someone at the NCAA grew a pair
2) ESPN still thinks Grayson Allen's suspension is the biggest current story in the NCAA

[CameronBornAndBred]

And Luke DeCock says what everyone is thinking -- that UNC caught a break with the watered-down ANOA, but instead of accepting the gift and putting the episode in the rearview mirror, they got greedy and poked the bear (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article122482169.html).

Favorite part...


All of which leaves North Carolina in a worse position than not only where it was in April, when the (successfully) amended notice of allegations was released, but also where it started with the original notice of allegations way back in June 2015, facing even more specific and serious allegations against football and men’s basketball, while also expanding the time frame of the allegations back to 2002, a morass from which it had successfully emerged eight months ago.

[jv001]

I can't possibly put into words just how much I hate the Cheats at this time in my life and I really don't like that word "hate". However in their case, they deserve it. For most of my life dating back to when I was a freshman in high school, I've witnessed their arrogance. I remember going to football games played between my beloved Blue Devils and the Cheats. I will always believe that they had the refs in their pockets. Back then I called them tar heels but now Cheats is the best name I can think of. I hope the NCAA gives them the death penalty and takes away all wins from football and men's bb all the way back to the Dean days. I'm glad I got that off my chest. 9F GoDuke!

[BigWayne]

In rereading this NOA it is much clearer than the other two and looks like the NCAA made a point of taking all of the previous UNC arguments and specifically adding language to negate them.

Yes I am seeing this also. Especially the last couple pages where they list out a bunch of names, including Roy Williams, Butch Davis, and Dick Baddour. Somebody at the NCAA got tired of hearing Roy explain how he wasn't mentioned in the NOA.

[OldPhiKap]

Is there any difference in the "request for supplemental information" section (starting on page 11) from prior NOAs? Would be interesting to see if the NCAA is digging in a particular direction.

[mgtr]

So, as I see it, the NCAA threw a lifeline to UNC, and UNC basically threw it back. In an organization I ran, heads would roll at UNC. Any idea who decided to "poke the bear?"

[MarkD83]

So, as I see it, the NCAA threw a lifeline to UNC, and UNC basically threw it back. In an organization I ran, heads would roll at UNC. Any idea who decided to "poke the bear?"

This was probably UNC's plan all along. They thought the NCAA would flinch at the procedural hearing and they were wrong.

[-jk]

After the amended NOA, the conventional wisdom seemed to be that UNC probably could negotiate a penalty involving some probation and a fine, and maybe some program-specific penalties for women's basketball -- but no banners would come down, and neither football nor men's basketball would suffer any program-specific penalties (i.e., no scholarship losses, no vacated wins, etc.). So it's probably not accurate to say UNC could have "skated," but they likely could've gotten off a lot easier.

If unc keeps their MBB banners and wins, they'll have skated by their standards.

-jk

[sagegrouse]

This was probably UNC's plan all along. They thought the NCAA would flinch at the procedural hearing and they were wrong.

I wonder about speculation, which I have also made, that UNC's lack of humility and arrogance was a factor in the strengthening of the COI's resolve. It seems to me quite possible that, in the beginning, UNC out-lawyered the enforcement staff and got the allegations in the original NOA watered down in the ANOA. Then the "Chieftains" showed up -- the heavy hitters from the Committee on Infractions who assigned themselves to the UNC case. "Not so fast there, Bubba and Carol, this may be one of the biggest scandals in NCAA history. And, although you may object, we are going to re-draw the charges appropriate to the magnitude of the crimes."

To me, this helps explain the anomaly that while minor transgressions were leading to huge penalties in recent cases (like Notre Dame, SMU, and Syracuse), UNC's charges in a much, much bigger case were being watered down and seemingly limited to the sacrificial lamb of women's basketball. The adults are now in charge of the case, and they are having nothing to do with UNC's excuses that the presence of non-athletes is proof of innocence and that the contents of "bogus courses" used to keep athletes eligible are outside the NCAA's jurisdiction. Accepting UNC's excuses would be the end of the NCAA as an enforcement agency.

[OldPhiKap]

Pride goeth before the fall.

[BD80]

... Just a country lawyer, slinging my bag from town to town . . . .

Hearing that phrase in court makes my nethers pucker and causes me to reflexively check and see if I still have my wallet ...


Dan Kane: Latest NCAA allegations against UNC broaden the scope of potential penalties (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article122420449.html)

He cuts right to the chase on the BS of Bubba's "procedural" argument:

And Luke DeCock says what everyone is thinking -- that UNC caught a break with the watered-down ANOA, but instead of accepting the gift and putting the episode in the rearview mirror, they got greedy and poked the bear (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article122482169.html).

Jon Solomon blames unc's "arrogance:"

http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/north-carolinas-arrogance-might-have-backfired-in-ncaa-academic-fraud-case/


Did we just witness the height of North Carolina arrogance backfire? ...

... there are so many games in so many sports that could be vacated at North Carolina. It's hard to comprehend how much of UNC's sports history since 2002 could vanish from the record books and be accompanied by other penalties moving forward. ...

[Nugget]

Actually, as I read the new amended NOA, the enforcement staff is alleging impermissible benefits by asserting in paragraphs 1a and 1b that Crowder and Nyang'oro facilitated "special arrangements to student-athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation." Moreover, the revised NOA specifically rejects the premise that the benefits were not violations simply because the courses were open to the general student population, on the ground that the athletes were afforded a number of special benefits and privileges with respect to enrollment, course assignments, submission of work, and grading that were not available to the general students. Finally, it should be noted that the new NOA contains a footnote on page 1 expressly rejecting UNC's statute of limitations defense on two grounds -- the "pattern of willful violations" exception, and perhaps more significantly, because "the factual information indicates a blatant disregard for the NCAA's fundamental extra-benefit and ethical conduct bylaws . . .."

To amplify on Stray's apt summary of the 2nd Amended NOA, I also read it to be re-asserting the impermissible benefits claim (individually against Crowder and Nyang'oro in Allegation 1 and against UNC through those allegations incorporation into the LOIC claim in Allegation 5), with the key factual allegations, in addition to extending the time period back to 2002, being:

1. [UNC] and its athletics department leveraged the relationship with Crowder and Nyang'oro to obtain special arrangements for student-athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation. Specifically:

a. … Although general students also took the anomalous courses, Crowder and Nyang'oro worked closely and directly with athletics. As a result, student-athletes were afforded greater access to the anomalous courses and enrolled in these courses at a disproportionately higher rate than students who were not athletes. Many at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football and men's basketball, used these courses for purposes of ensuring their continuing NCAA academic eligibility.” (emphasis added)

b. … While general students had to work directly with Crowder or Nyang'oro to access and complete the anomalous courses, [UNC] provided student-athletes with special arrangements that were not generally available to the student body. These special arrangements were characterized by athletics personnel [helping athletes to register after enrollment deadlines], “suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department,” and “on occasion, …. recommending course grades for student-athletes.” ... [Athletes’] access to and completion of these courses was a benefit not generally available to other students and relieved student-athletes of the academic responsibilities of a general student. In some cases, these courses influenced the student-athletes' NCAA academic eligibility.” (emphasis added).

That would seem to provide the necessary basis to support a finding that the violations enabled otherwise ineligible players to be eligible and support vacating games/banners as was done to USC and Notre Dame football and (sort of since the Fab 5 didn't quite win anything) Michigan basketball.

Stray's notation of the footnote in the new NOA about the exceptions to the 4 year statute of limitation applying based on a "pattern of willful violations" or "blatant disregard" of extra benefits/ethical conduct rules is a function of what the Committee on Infractions did in its Nov. 28, 2016 letter that UNC also released today along with the new NOA.

In that letter, the COI largely ruled on UNC's "procedural objections" that had led to the unusual hearing in October. Specifically, and most importantly, in that letter the COI expressly rejected UNC's contention that the allegations at issue are outside the NCAA's jurisdiction because the NCAA lacks authority over academic integrity (basically, the Jay Bilas argument that "easy courses are not an NCAA violation").

The COI's ruling rejects that objection and orders that the case can to go a merits hearing, essentially reasoning that the NCAA does have jurisdiction when a school's athletics personnel use such courses in a manner that "improperly influenc[es] student-athletes' eligibility," and in so doing discussed the apparent rationale for the watering down of Allegation 1 between the original NOA and the amended NOA, and explains that it was unnecessary [and later in the ruling invited the Enforcement Staff to file the new, 2nd Amended NOA released today]:

“… courses and the involvement of student-athletes and institutional staff can present potential violations of NCAA legislation without running afoul of general institutional academic autonomy. Based on the [amended NOA and procedural hearing], the panel concludes that the infractions process is appropriately invoked to hear the core of this case.”

“The NCAA's constitution and bylaws do not generally contemplate the infractions process addressing quality and content assessments regarding academic courses. [But, the infractions process can] address circumstances involving an athletics department … improperly influencing student-athletes' eligibility or academic performance. This is particularly true where conduct could demonstrate orchestrated efforts to inappropriately establish, preserve or obtain eligibility. "…

"At the procedural hearing, the panel probed the underlying reasons for amending the original NOA. The panel is concerned about the parties' expressed rationale for removing former Allegation No. 1. The change appears to have been based, in part, on a belief by the enforcement staff that the COI does not generally support the consideration of impermissible academic assistance allegations [as NCAA violations]. That is not an accurate characterization of the COI's position. The COI will consider allegations of violations of NCAA rules, including those involving impermissible academic assistance and academic misconduct, [if warranted by the facts]. … The COI has never intended to suggest that appropriately framed academic allegations (i.e., impermissible academic assistance or academic misconduct) should not be presented to the COI. In reviewing the ANOA, the panel believes there is a basis for alleging violations of NCAA legislation.”


In the letter, the COI goes on to reject all but 1 of UNC's other "procedural objections" (that the allegations are barred by the "finality" of the 2011-2012 investigation, that this proceeding is "fundamentally unfair" and that the Wainstein report should be inadmissible because of how the interviews were conducted), concluding, in essence, that (1) "finality" and "fairness" don't prohibit this proceeding b/c the Wainstein report is new information and that UNC had an affirmative obligation to have thoroughly investigated before and to present newly uncovered evidence of violations; and (2) the report is admissible b/c UNC itself has vouched for the thoroughness of the investigation and used its findings with SACS.

The one procedural objection the COI didn't rule on was the 4 year statute of limitations -- it deferred that to the merits hearing, but did note the potential application of the two exceptions for a pattern of "willful violations" or conduct showing "blatant disregard" of impermissible benefits/ethics rules. So, it is natural that the Enforcement Staff added the footnote about that to the new NOA.


Lastly, while not strictly necessary to its ruling on the procedural objections, the COI did make some statements describing the case that may give a sense of where they will be coming from with respect to the merits hearing:

"“The conduct spans 18 years and appears to implicate issues at the very core of the Collegiate Model. The panel is mindful that this case involves difficult issues. Indeed, before its own accrediting body, [UNC] described the potential violations in this case as academic fraud and was subsequently placed on probation.” ...

“The panel's position [that there is a basis to allege violation of NCAA rules re: academic assistance and academic misconduct] is further supported by the parties' presentations and the limited procedural record in this case. Upon discovering irregularities within its AFRI/AFRAM courses, the institution [investigated, culminating with the Wainstein report and UNC’s statement to SACS] that academic misconduct occurred, ‘that the academic fraud was longstanding and not limited to the misconduct of just [Crowder and Nyang'oro].’”


So, clearly, the COI isn't going to want to hear anything from UNC trying to minimize the extent of the academic fraud. Which really leaves only the question of whether UNC could somehow prove (or argue the enforcement staff can't prove) that the scheme actually (i) didn't or (ii) wasn't intended to disproportionately benefit student-athletes and/or maybe, as a backup, argue that, even if there was an overall scheme that supports harsh go-forward sanctions, the scheme cannot be linked to the eligibility of any individual student-athlete and, thus, shouldn't result in banners coming down.

[OldPhiKap]

To amplify on Stray's apt summary of the 2nd Amended NOA, I also read it to be re-asserting the impermissible benefits claim (individually against Crowder and Nyang'oro in Allegation 1 and against UNC through those allegations incorporation into the LOIC claim in Allegation 5), with the key factual allegations, in addition to extending the time period back to 2002, being:

1. [UNC] and its athletics department leveraged the relationship with Crowder and Nyang'oro to obtain special arrangements for student-athletes in violation of extra-benefit legislation. Specifically:

a. … Although general students also took the anomalous courses, Crowder and Nyang'oro worked closely and directly with athletics. As a result, student-athletes were afforded greater access to the anomalous courses and enrolled in these courses at a disproportionately higher rate than students who were not athletes. Many at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football and men's basketball, used these courses for purposes of ensuring their continuing NCAA academic eligibility.” (emphasis added)

b. … While general students had to work directly with Crowder or Nyang'oro to access and complete the anomalous courses, [UNC] provided student-athletes with special arrangements that were not generally available to the student body. These special arrangements were characterized by athletics personnel [helping athletes to register after enrollment deadlines], “suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department,” and “on occasion, …. recommending course grades for student-athletes.” ... [Athletes’] access to and completion of these courses was a benefit not generally available to other students and relieved student-athletes of the academic responsibilities of a general student. In some cases, these courses influenced the student-athletes' NCAA academic eligibility.” (emphasis added).

That would seem to provide the necessary basis to support a finding that the violations enabled otherwise ineligible players to be eligible and support vacating games/banners as was done to USC and Notre Dame football and (sort of since the Fab 5 didn't quite win anything) Michigan basketball.

Stray's notation of the footnote in the new NOA about the exceptions to the 4 year statute of limitation applying based on a "pattern of willful violations" or "blatant disregard" of extra benefits/ethical conduct rules is a function of what the Committee on Infractions did in its Nov. 28, 2016 letter that UNC also released today along with the new NOA.

In that letter, the COI largely ruled on UNC's "procedural objections" that had led to the unusual hearing in October. Specifically, and most importantly, in that letter the COI expressly rejected UNC's contention that the allegations at issue are outside the NCAA's jurisdiction because the NCAA lacks authority over academic integrity (basically, the Jay Bilas argument that "easy courses are not an NCAA violation").

The COI's ruling rejects that objection and orders that the case can to go a merits hearing, essentially reasoning that the NCAA does have jurisdiction when a school's athletics personnel use such courses in a manner that "improperly influenc[es] student-athletes' eligibility," and in so doing discussed the apparent rationale for the watering down of Allegation 1 between the original NOA and the amended NOA, and explains that it was unnecessary [and later in the ruling invited the Enforcement Staff to file the new, 2nd Amended NOA released today]:

“… courses and the involvement of student-athletes and institutional staff can present potential violations of NCAA legislation without running afoul of general institutional academic autonomy. Based on the [amended NOA and procedural hearing], the panel concludes that the infractions process is appropriately invoked to hear the core of this case.”

“The NCAA's constitution and bylaws do not generally contemplate the infractions process addressing quality and content assessments regarding academic courses. [But, the infractions process can] address circumstances involving an athletics department … improperly influencing student-athletes' eligibility or academic performance. This is particularly true where conduct could demonstrate orchestrated efforts to inappropriately establish, preserve or obtain eligibility. "…

"At the procedural hearing, the panel probed the underlying reasons for amending the original NOA. The panel is concerned about the parties' expressed rationale for removing former Allegation No. 1. The change appears to have been based, in part, on a belief by the enforcement staff that the COI does not generally support the consideration of impermissible academic assistance allegations [as NCAA violations]. That is not an accurate characterization of the COI's position. The COI will consider allegations of violations of NCAA rules, including those involving impermissible academic assistance and academic misconduct, [if warranted by the facts]. … The COI has never intended to suggest that appropriately framed academic allegations (i.e., impermissible academic assistance or academic misconduct) should not be presented to the COI. In reviewing the ANOA, the panel believes there is a basis for alleging violations of NCAA legislation.”


In the letter, the COI goes on to reject all but 1 of UNC's other "procedural objections" (that the allegations are barred by the "finality" of the 2011-2012 investigation, that this proceeding is "fundamentally unfair" and that the Wainstein report should be inadmissible because of how the interviews were conducted), concluding, in essence, that (1) "finality" and "fairness" don't prohibit this proceeding b/c the Wainstein report is new information and that UNC had an affirmative obligation to have thoroughly investigated before and to present newly uncovered evidence of violations; and (2) the report is admissible b/c UNC itself has vouched for the thoroughness of the investigation and used its findings with SACS.

The one procedural objection the COI didn't rule on was the 4 year statute of limitations -- it deferred that to the merits hearing, but did note the potential application of the two exceptions for a pattern of "willful violations" or conduct showing "blatant disregard" of impermissible benefits/ethics rules. So, it is natural that the Enforcement Staff added the footnote about that to the new NOA.


Lastly, while not strictly necessary to its ruling on the procedural objections, the COI did make some statements describing the case that may give a sense of where they will be coming from with respect to the merits hearing:

"“The conduct spans 18 years and appears to implicate issues at the very core of the Collegiate Model. The panel is mindful that this case involves difficult issues. Indeed, before its own accrediting body, [UNC] described the potential violations in this case as academic fraud and was subsequently placed on probation.” ...

“The panel's position [that there is a basis to allege violation of NCAA rules re: academic assistance and academic misconduct] is further supported by the parties' presentations and the limited procedural record in this case. Upon discovering irregularities within its AFRI/AFRAM courses, the institution [investigated, culminating with the Wainstein report and UNC’s statement to SACS] that academic misconduct occurred, ‘that the academic fraud was longstanding and not limited to the misconduct of just [Crowder and Nyang'oro].’”


So, clearly, the COI isn't going to want to hear anything from UNC trying to minimize the extent of the academic fraud. Which really leaves only the question of whether UNC could somehow prove (or argue the enforcement staff can't prove) that the scheme actually (i) didn't or (ii) wasn't intended to disproportionately benefit student-athletes and/or maybe, as a backup, argue that, even if there was an overall scheme that supports harsh go-forward sanctions, the scheme cannot be linked to the eligibility of any individual student-athlete and, thus, shouldn't result in banners coming down.

Go
To
HELL,
Carolina,
Go
To
HELL!!!!!!!!

[CameronBornAndBred]

How's the mood over at Pack Pride this evening? Anyone left sober?

[UrinalCake]

If unc keeps their MBB banners and wins, they'll have skated by their standards.


Disagree. By their standards, they have already been punished more than they deserve by the enormous harm to recruiting that the NCAA has caused. Many of their fans actually said when the first ANOA was issued that the NCAA owed them an apology.

[OldPhiKap]

If unc keeps their MBB banners and wins, they'll have skated by their standards.

-jk


Disagree. By their standards, they have already been punished more than they deserve by the enormous harm to recruiting that the NCAA has caused. Many of their fans actually said when the first ANOA was issued that the NCAA owed them an apology.

I agree with -jk. It is all about the banners for UNC. It has always been about the banners. It always will be about the banners.

UNC would trade five years of suckitude for the glory of The Carolina Way and its spot in history. Rams Clubbers will gladly pay any fine possible if it retains the banners. They hang a damn bakery's post-hoc Helms award banner for Pete's sake. There is absolutely nothing they would not give up to keep the warm but deluded memories of honorable championships done the right way.

Bull.

I hope the NCAA vacates all 225 wins under Roy that are in focus, including the two National Championships. UNC is the poster child for hubris, false sanctimony, and poseurism. They deserve to burn on a rancid pile of putrid manure, self-marinating in their own smug juices. And Roy deserves to be shown for the deceitful fraud he looks to be.

If Roy didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.

Go to HELL Carolina. GO TO HELL!

CLAP!

CLAP!!!

[devildeac]

I agree with -jk. It is all about the banners for UNC. It has always been about the banners. It always will be about the banners.

UNC would trade five years of suckitude for the glory of The Carolina Way and its spot in history. Rams Clubbers will gladly pay any fine possible if it retains the banners. They hang a damn bakery's post-hoc Helms award banner for Pete's sake. There is absolutely nothing they would not give up to keep the warm but deluded memories of honorable championships done the right way.

Bull.

I hope the NCAA vacates all 225 wins under Roy that are in focus, including the two National Championships. UNC is the poster child for hubris, false sanctimony, and poseurism. They deserve to burn on a rancid pile of putrid manure, self-marinating in their own smug juices. And Roy deserves to be shown for the deceitful fraud he looks to be.

If Roy didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.

Go to HELL Carolina. GO TO HELL!

CLAP!

CLAP!!!

Wait, I thought you weren't paying any attention to this and wanted us to wake you when it was over...

(;))

I do call "shotgun" in whatever vehicle you're driving this weekend however. :)

[Tom B.]

If unc keeps their MBB banners and wins, they'll have skated by their standards.

FWIW, Dana O'Neil was on at halftime of the Wake game and said the SANOA puts Roy's 2005 and 2009 titles squarely in the crosshairs.

I know, it's just speculation from one talking head. But it's the first time I can recall anyone at the Worldwide Leader talking so openly about the possibility of titles being vacated.

[Tom B.]

So, as I see it, the NCAA threw a lifeline to UNC, and UNC basically threw it back. In an organization I ran, heads would roll at UNC.

No kidding. If this was the advice of UNC's lawyers, I hope they've notified their malpractice insurance carrier.

[madscavenger]

Take three. It will undoubtedly be warm and fuzzy over there knowing that the their only "legitimate" banner was won by Frank McGuire and his thugs from the Big Apple.

[madscavenger]

Sure they've been sitting on it. The early signing period just ended, right? Nah, must be the Solstice.

[moonpie23]

fool me twice, shame on.....uhh....won't get fooled again...


the arrogance has risen since the ANOA..........

I'm not buying that anything has actually changed......we shall see...

[martydoesntfoul]

Really good summary here:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2016/12/22/north-carolina-releases-ncaas-third-yes-third-notice-of-allegations-in-academic-fraud-case/?client=safari

The author argues this was a classic academic fraud case from the beginning, one that both the NCAA and UNC wanted to go away. But via a combination of arrogance and ineptitude, we're finally back where we should have been all along.

[WWBD]

Also, never forget that the NCAA has the transcripts. UNC making procedural arguments about bylaws because they have no other ground to stand on. The NCAA has the transcripts. The proof is in the pudding.

[BigWayne]

Ted Tatos/Bluedevilicious has been making some very good posts highlighting key parts of the latest docs as well as other relevant documents:

This one might help explain what just happened to the cheats, i.e poking the bear. (https://twitter.com/TedTatos/status/811949106373402624)

[OldPhiKap]

Wait, I thought you weren't paying any attention to this and wanted us to wake you when it was over...

(;))

I do call "shotgun" in whatever vehicle you're driving this weekend however. :)

Too delicious to pass up. Like saying "I'll pass on dessert" or "no bacon for me, thanks"

[ikiru36]

Really good summary here:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/bdavidridpath/2016/12/22/north-carolina-releases-ncaas-third-yes-third-notice-of-allegations-in-academic-fraud-case/?client=safari

The author argues this was a classic academic fraud case from the beginning, one that both the NCAA and UNC wanted to go away. But via a combination of arrogance and ineptitude, we're finally back where we should have been all along.

Agreed, (aside from glossing over that this fraud likely goes back to 1992 rather than 2002) a really good and recommended summary. My own summary: the only thing to match their dishonor is their hubris, the real Carolina Way.

My vitriol over this makes me want to change the famous chant to Burn in Hell Carolina, Burn in Hell. What a disgrace.

[bob blue devil]

so, um... the coi set a jan. 3rd date for a "complete update on the case". then what? the original amended noi was released 6 months ago - do we have at least another 6 months here?

i believe all 4 of unc's 2016 commits have signed loi's - i wonder if any are having second thoughts and what their options are.

[devildeac]

Too delicious to pass up. Like saying "I'll pass on dessert" or "no bacon for me, thanks"

I've got a bourbon barrel aged barleywine I'm tasting tonight. Might be a couple coffee-infused imperial stouts on the schedule tomorrow. Perhaps some New Glarus fruit beers poured Christmas day...

[wsb3]

Pride goeth before the fall.

One of my favorite quotes & very appropriate in this case.

It blows my mind that they refused the deal they were offered in the Spring. I sent a text to a UNC fan yesterday asking why & he responded "Who knows?" signaling end of the conversation, which is fine but he sure started out my day with texts about Grayson.

It is all good. I love him regardless. Back to when he was 10 years old & I was his basketball coach.

[wsb3]

How's the mood over at Pack Pride this evening? Anyone left sober?

Thankful I did not have my mug of coffee in hand at the moment I read this. I had to share this with one of my friends/former player who is a State Grad & a diehard Pack fan..:)

[budwom]

I agree with -jk. It is all about the banners for UNC. It has always been about the banners. It always will be about the banners.

UNC would trade five years of suckitude for the glory of The Carolina Way and its spot in history. Rams Clubbers will gladly pay any fine possible if it retains the banners. They hang a damn bakery's post-hoc Helms award banner for Pete's sake. There is absolutely nothing they would not give up to keep the warm but deluded memories of honorable championships done the right way.

Bull.

I hope the NCAA vacates all 225 wins under Roy that are in focus, including the two National Championships. UNC is the poster child for hubris, false sanctimony, and poseurism. They deserve to burn on a rancid pile of putrid manure, self-marinating in their own smug juices. And Roy deserves to be shown for the deceitful fraud he looks to be.

If Roy didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.

Go to HELL Carolina. GO TO HELL!

CLAP!

CLAP!!!

I have to disagree, OPK...yeah, the banners are a huge deal, but it's not ALL about the banners by any means. As you well know, last year's deny, delay and obfuscate tactics nearly got the holes a national championship.
That's no small consideration. They must definitely would NOT have taken a deal last year in which they were banned from the tournament for a year (or more) in return for retaining the banners.

[MarkD83]

Agreed, (aside from glossing over that this fraud likely goes back to 1992 rather than 2002) a really good and recommended summary. My own summary: the only thing to match their dishonor is their hubris, the real Carolina Way.

My vitriol over this makes me want to change the famous chant to Burn in Hell Carolina, Burn in Hell. What a disgrace.

Given that the ncaa extended the time frame with this NOA, I am thinking that was a shot across the bow. They can go back and include guthridges time as coach if unc tries anymore shenanigans and if unc goes all in (sues) then back to 1992

[diablesseblu]

I have to disagree, OPK...yeah, the banners are a huge deal, but it's not ALL about the banners by any means. As you well know, last year's deny, delay and obfuscate tactics nearly got the holes a national championship.
That's no small consideration. They must definitely would NOT have taken a deal last year in which they were banned from the tournament for a year (or more) in return for retaining the banners.

Agree completely. Despite the circumstance of their very close loss last year, the "gloom/doom/hard to get over it" attitude I saw among the UNC fans was because of this. They had put their eggs in a "getting that championship basket." By delaying etc., they both risked pi***** off every AD whose school has been sanctioned and having the UNC subject brought up every time a school deals with the NCAA about a violation.

All those millions of dollars in legal fees, and it appears they have overplayed their hand.

[devildeac]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet but Dan Kane mentioned in his article this AM that the words "unethical conduct/behavior" were added to the new and improved re-amended ANOA. :)

[budwom]

All the huffing and puffing by the holes regarding suing the NCAA is pretty funny. Judging by the NOA, the NCAA would very much enjoy putting
Crowder and Dr. Julius on the stand...I'm not lawyer, but I could see them taking the fifth (I believe there has to be some violation of law regarding the "anomalous classes").
What a fun spectacle that would be!

[JasonEvans]

If unc keeps their MBB banners and wins, they'll have skated by their standards.

Are punishments that look backwards worse than once that affect you going forward? Put another way, which is worse -- losing scholarships and postseason opportunities or having titles and wins vacated?

I would argue that forward looking punishments are worse. Fans and programs largely live in the moment. Sure, seeing those banners hanging is fun, but our passion for our school is largely manifest in rooting for the current team and dreaming about what they can do. Winning right now sells tickets and t-shirts and drives TV ratings. Carolina fans watched and celebrated the national titles in 2005 and 2009. It is not like vacating those titles would remove the memories from the fans. If Carolina won a title illegally, the best way to punish them is to do all you can to prevent the team from being successful going forward -- that means reduced scholarships and postseason bans.

-Jason "make no mistake, I think those banners should come down, but it should be accompanied by stiff forward-looking penalties as well" Evans

[Doria]

Yep, if ever a situation called for an Internet "It can be two things!" it's this one. Or, you know, more than two things... ;)

[moonpie23]

but our passion for our school is largely manifest in rooting for the current team and dreaming about what they can do. Winning right now sells tickets and t-shirts and drives TV ratings. Carolina fans watched and celebrated the national titles in 2005 and 2009.

we do....they don't.......the ultimate arrogance for them lives in those titles.......take them away and tarhole fan is a shell of a human being. they eat, breathe, live those titles.......the very slim outrageous idea that duke would have more banners is the 7th layer of hell for those folks...

they don't even like that we're "almost" tied with them at 5...

[MarkD83]

Are punishments that look backwards worse than once that affect you going forward? Put another way, which is worse -- losing scholarships and postseason opportunities or having titles and wins vacated?

I would argue that forward looking punishments are worse. Fans and programs largely live in the moment. Sure, seeing those banners hanging is fun, but our passion for our school is largely manifest in rooting for the current team and dreaming about what they can do. Winning right now sells tickets and t-shirts and drives TV ratings. Carolina fans watched and celebrated the national titles in 2005 and 2009. It is not like vacating those titles would remove the memories from the fans. If Carolina won a title illegally, the best way to punish them is to do all you can to prevent the team from being successful going forward -- that means reduced scholarships and postseason bans.

-Jason "make no mistake, I think those banners should come down, but it should be accompanied by stiff forward-looking penalties as well" Evans

Of course losing the banners includes forfeiting the money earned during the tournament so unc would have a large repayment fine that hurts going forward. Any money for a fine takes away from some capital improvement for the university. The only worry is that the bog takes the money out of the unc system which then penalizes schools other than chapel hill

[GGLC]

Are punishments that look backwards worse than once that affect you going forward? Put another way, which is worse -- losing scholarships and postseason opportunities or having titles and wins vacated?

I would argue that forward looking punishments are worse. Fans and programs largely live in the moment. Sure, seeing those banners hanging is fun, but our passion for our school is largely manifest in rooting for the current team and dreaming about what they can do. Winning right now sells tickets and t-shirts and drives TV ratings. Carolina fans watched and celebrated the national titles in 2005 and 2009. It is not like vacating those titles would remove the memories from the fans. If Carolina won a title illegally, the best way to punish them is to do all you can to prevent the team from being successful going forward -- that means reduced scholarships and postseason bans.

-Jason "make no mistake, I think those banners should come down, but it should be accompanied by stiff forward-looking penalties as well" Evans

I think backwards-looking penalties are worse (in terms of how they feel to the fans) when they involve titles being vacated. It's a lot harder to feel the marginal impact of reduced scholarships than it is to know that nobody else will ever consider your 2005 and 2009 titles to be legitimate.

[yancem]

I've got a bourbon barrel aged barleywine I'm tasting tonight. Might be a couple coffee-infused imperial stouts on the schedule tomorrow. Perhaps some New Glarus fruit beers poured Christmas day...

I was with you until you said "fruit beer"!!!! Fruit does not belong in beer (unless it is s lime in a corona because that's the only way they're drinkable).

[JasonEvans]

Roy knew, Dean too

Take three. It will undoubtedly be warm and fuzzy over there knowing that the their only "legitimate" banner was won by Frank McGuire and his thugs from the Big Apple.

In fairness, the 1982 title won by Dean with Michael Jordan and James Worthy is 100% without taint, I believe. All the evidence seems to point to this scandal starting in 1992... after Duke won a national title and Dean was suddenly no longer the undisputed big boy in the neighborhood.

-Jason "I will say that given what we know about Dean's control over the program, the notion that he had no idea that anything funky was going on with his player's classes in the 90s is pretty unlikely" Evans

[ikiru36]

Are punishments that look backwards worse than once that affect you going forward? Put another way, which is worse -- losing scholarships and postseason opportunities or having titles and wins vacated?

I would argue that forward looking punishments are worse. Fans and programs largely live in the moment. Sure, seeing those banners hanging is fun, but our passion for our school is largely manifest in rooting for the current team and dreaming about what they can do. Winning right now sells tickets and t-shirts and drives TV ratings. Carolina fans watched and celebrated the national titles in 2005 and 2009. It is not like vacating those titles would remove the memories from the fans. If Carolina won a title illegally, the best way to punish them is to do all you can to prevent the team from being successful going forward -- that means reduced scholarships and postseason bans.

-Jason "make no mistake, I think those banners should come down, but it should be accompanied by stiff forward-looking penalties as well" Evans

Jason, both forward and backward looking punishments are important and warranted (both morally and per NCAA rulebook and past rulings) in this case. That said, it's hard for me to imagine any Duke fan (or State fan for that matter) who grew up in and continues to reside in the State of North Carolina (in other words in near constant proximity to copious real, live Carolina fans in their natural habitat) not seeing the removal of deceitfully and detestably unearned banners, wins, trophies...etc. as the far bigger wounding to TarH*** Nation.

Honestly, if they win stuff admirably going forward (post-adequate punishment), I won't be happy but bully for them. At least it would feel like a real rivalry again. But their ability to retain their sense of smug superiority based on past ill-gotten gains is what most sticks in the craw, for me anyways. Imagine them all having to give a second thought to publicly wearing all those awfully colored t-shirts...etc. that brag of wins/banners which were since erased from the record books, for fear of others snickering at them (which I promise to do at every respectable opportunity for the rest of my life). Heck, they might halfway begin to know how it's felt to be a Duke fan living among them, proud of my own team's achievements which were rightfully earned, and incessantly scorned nonetheless.

Burn in Hell Carolina, Burn in Hell!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JasonEvans]

i believe all 4 of unc's 2016 commits have signed loi's - i wonder if any are having second thoughts and what their options are.

Bwahahahaha! Let the Heels keep em. Other than Jalek Felton, the rest of the class is incredibly mediocre, not even ranked in the top 100. It is entirely possible that Luke Maye will be Carolina's best player next season (Berry and Jackson are going to flee for the NBA or pro ball somewhere, I suspect).

[devildeac]

I was with you until you said "fruit beer"!!!! Fruit does not belong in beer (unless it is s lime in a corona because that's the only way they're drinkable).

Then you need to join fuse and me whilst we sip/sample some New Glarus Apple Ale, Raspberry Tart, Wisconsin Red or Serendipity sometime as they rival some of the best Belgian lambics brewed. The NG products listed above are consistently extremely highly rated on ratebeer and beeradvocate, too. That is, of course, if we have any left by the time you arrive :p .

I can certainly understand your thoughts about fruit beers and there are a few things I don't like in beers (habaneros) and am not that fond of strawberries in beers and fuse doesn't like apricots, but the NG products certainly changed my mind about 20 years ago when I discovered Raspberry Tart and Wisconsin Red.

[BD80]

Of course losing the banners includes forfeiting the money earned during the tournament so unc would have a large repayment fine that hurts going forward. Any money for a fine takes away from some capital improvement for the university. The only worry is that the bog takes the money out of the unc system which then penalizes schools other than chapel hill

Shouldn't the coaches who acted with putative knowledge of the fraud repay the salaries they were paid?

Now THAT'S a frickin' tragedy!

[Faustus]

I rather suspect Illinois and Michigan State would like to see some backwards-looking penalties, especially UNC banners and wins removed.

Merry Christmas, everyone (Grayson included).

[ikiru36]

Shouldn't the coaches who acted with putative knowledge of the fraud repay the salaries they were paid?

Now THAT'S a frickin' tragedy!

Regarding Roy, if 1 (yes please) or both (pretty please) of his unearned titles were removed along with one to a few hundred wins (let alone the stench of the fraud itself), there is no way that he would have been in the Hall of Fame at this point. Even if that is not something that could be rescinded retroactively (pretty pretty please), that it would be brought up as a discussion point in the future whenever sports bloviators discussed Hall of Fame coaching criteria...etc. would be an awesome additional perk in itself.

[Indoor66]

In fairness, the 1982 title won by Dean with Michael Jordan and James Worthy is 100% without taint, I believe. All the evidence seems to point to this scandal starting in 1992... after Duke won a national title and Dean was suddenly no longer the undisputed big boy in the neighborhood.

-Jason "I will say that given what we know about Dean's control over the program, the notion that he had no idea that anything funky was going on with his player's classes in the 90s is pretty unlikely" Evans

I believe the evidence, per the SAC's report, goes back to 1988.

[TruBlu]

Regarding Roy, if 1 (yes please) or both (pretty please) of his unearned titles were removed along with one to a few hundred wins (let alone the stench of the fraud itself), there is no way that he would have been in the Hall of Fame at this point. Even if that is not something that could be rescinded retroactively (pretty pretty please), that it would be brought up as a discussion point in the future whenever sports bloviators discussed Hall of Fame coaching criteria...etc. would be an awesome additional perk in itself.

Not so sure that it would be brought up for "ole roy", especially at ESPN. It seems that the bloviators either do not remember, or chose to ignore that John Calipari had a few wins vacated.

But I like the way you think.

[MChambers]

I rather suspect Illinois and Michigan State would like to see some backwards-looking penalties, especially UNC banners and wins removed.

Merry Christmas, everyone (Grayson included).
It wouldn't mean Illinois and Michigan State would be awarded the titles, however.

[Indoor66]

It wouldn't mean Illinois and Michigan State would be awarded the titles, however.

I don't believe that is the outcome. I think the titles for those two years are merely vacated. The runners up remain the runners up.

[Olympic Fan]

It wouldn't mean Illinois and Michigan State would be awarded the titles, however.

When the NCAA "vacates" wins, it's different than forfeiting those games. With a forfeit, the losing team actually gets the win. When a win is vacated, the result is erased ... but the losing team doesn't get the win.

So if either/both of UNC's title runs was vacated, Illinois and Michigan State would be able to erase the title-game losses, but not claim the titles.

PS Not sure when the NCAA switched from forfeits to vacated games. I know in 1965, the ACC made South Carolina forfeit it's ACC wins. As a result, Duke lost the 1965 ACC title -- Duke had beaten South Carolina, so the Devils didn't gain, while NC State and Clemson each had a loss to the Gamecocks changed to a win -- which gave them the 1965 ACC football title.

[SCMatt33]

When the NCAA "vacates" wins, it's different than forfeiting those games. With a forfeit, the losing team actually gets the win. When a win is vacated, the result is erased ... but the losing team doesn't get the win.

So if either/both of UNC's title runs was vacated, Illinois and Michigan State would be able to erase the title-game losses, but not claim the titles.

PS Not sure when the NCAA switched from forfeits to vacated games. I know in 1965, the ACC made South Carolina forfeit it's ACC wins. As a result, Duke lost the 1965 ACC title -- Duke had beaten South Carolina, so the Devils didn't gain, while NC State and Clemson each had a loss to the Gamecocks changed to a win -- which gave them the 1965 ACC football title.

Just a small clarification. Opponent records are wholly unaffected by vacated games. Michigan State and Illinois would both still show losses in those games. There is simply no team that gets a win.

[NSDukeFan]

Just a small clarification. Opponent records are wholly unaffected by vacated games. Michigan State and Illinois would both still show losses in those games. There is simply no team that gets a win.

Which makes sense since no team of student-athletes won those games.

[dudog84]

Are punishments that look backwards worse than once that affect you going forward? Put another way, which is worse -- losing scholarships and postseason opportunities or having titles and wins vacated?

I would argue that forward looking punishments are worse. Fans and programs largely live in the moment. Sure, seeing those banners hanging is fun, but our passion for our school is largely manifest in rooting for the current team and dreaming about what they can do. Winning right now sells tickets and t-shirts and drives TV ratings. Carolina fans watched and celebrated the national titles in 2005 and 2009. It is not like vacating those titles would remove the memories from the fans. If Carolina won a title illegally, the best way to punish them is to do all you can to prevent the team from being successful going forward -- that means reduced scholarships and postseason bans.

-Jason "make no mistake, I think those banners should come down, but it should be accompanied by stiff forward-looking penalties as well" Evans

Don't forget that losing 200+ wins would drop them below us on the all-time wins chart. They would have nothing left to brag about over Duke. Plus there is the whole shame thing (assuming they ever feel any).

I want both, but I really want those ill-gotten wins and banners gone. If you steal and get caught, you don't get to keep the money.

[BigWayne]

we do...they don't....the ultimate arrogance for them lives in those titles....take them away and Tar Heel fan is a shell of a human being. they eat, breathe, live those titles....the very slim outrageous idea that duke would have more banners is the 7th layer of hell for those folks...

they don't even like that we're "almost" tied with them at 5...

It depends on where you live. In Raleigh, the banners are a bigger punishment. In Atlanta, future/present penalties are a bigger deal. It's a function of how many arrogant condescending heel fans are in your immediate surroundings.

[plimnko]

isn't that redundant?

[BluDvlsN1]

I'm fully aware I'm preaching to the choir here, just venting...:mad:

It’s a travesty that a 21 yr old college student could be national news
for being immature.
But, an institution of “higher learning”, that is charged with the responsibility
of educating those very college students for an “education”, is culpable
of systemic fraud regarding their very reason for existence.

It’s a travesty that for 18+ years there can be so little regard for the
education of these student athletes as to create the appearance of education
to promote, elevate, financially viable sports programs.

It’s a travesty, this is just now a blip on main stream media’s screen.

It’s a travesty that Franklin St isn’t wall to wall with protesters making
national news demanding full disclosure and correction.

It’s a travesty the whole situation is so, predictable!

[slower]

Don't forget that losing 200+ wins would drop them below us on the all-time wins chart. They would have nothing left to brag about over Duke. Plus there is the whole shame thing (assuming they ever feel any).

I want both, but I really want those ill-gotten wins and banners gone. If you steal and get caught, you don't get to keep the money.

As much as we all want it, there's just no way they lose any banners. Manage those expectations, folks.

[BandAlum83]

Don't forget that losing 200+ wins would drop them below us on the all-time wins chart. They would have nothing left to brag about over Duke. Plus there is the whole shame thing (assuming they ever feel any).

I want both, but I really want those ill-gotten wins and banners gone. If you steal and get caught, you don't get to keep the money.

Will Roy be forced to March naked down Franklin Street while onlookers chant shame and throw rotten fruit and vegetables?

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

[stedge]

No, thanks.

[ikiru36]

I'm fully aware I'm preaching to the choir here, just venting...:mad:

It’s a travesty that a 21 yr old college student could be national news
for being immature.
But, an institution of “higher learning”, that is charged with the responsibility
of educating those very college students for an “education”, is culpable
of systemic fraud regarding their very reason for existence.

It’s a travesty that for 18+ years there can be so little regard for the
education of these student athletes as to create the appearance of education
to promote, elevate, financially viable sports programs.

It’s a travesty, this is just now a blip on main stream media’s screen.

It’s a travesty that Franklin St isn’t wall to wall with protesters making
national news demanding full disclosure and correction.

It’s a travesty the whole situation is so, predictable!

I believe that the word you are really searching for is travashamockery.

And it is, indeed, a travashamockery! (with all due respect to Bob Odenkirk)

Burn in Hell, Carolina, Burn in Hell!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[subzero02]

Will Roy be forced to March naked down Franklin Street while onlookers chant shame and throw rotten fruit and vegetables?

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

No, the onlookers will compliment him on his beautifully tailored new suit.

[BLPOG]

I believe that the word you are really searching for is travashamockery.

And it is, indeed, a travashamockery! (with all due respect to Bob Odenkirk)

Burn in Hell, Carolina, Burn in Hell!!! Go Blue Devils!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

traveshamockery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-huLRWFRQ)

[dudog84]

As much as we all want it, there's just no way they lose any banners. Manage those expectations, folks.

Don't get this. First, certitude is never a good thing, none of us know exactly how this will play out. Second, everyone else has had to vacate wins for much less. Why not uNC?

[dudog84]

Will Roy be forced to March naked down Franklin Street while onlookers chant shame and throw rotten fruit and vegetables?

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

Only if Carol Folt has to walk behind him ringing a bell.

[devildeac]

It depends on where you live. In Raleigh, the banners are a bigger punishment. In Atlanta, future/present penalties are a bigger deal. It's a function of how many arrogant condescending heel fans are in your immediate surroundings.


isn't that redundant?

Not really. Big Wayne omitted lying, cheating, obfuscating, smug, deceptive, pompous, shameless and sartorially sinful. What am I missing?

[JasonEvans]

traveshamockery (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9-huLRWFRQ)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F38gMBjBFU0

[alteran]

Will Roy be forced to March naked down Franklin Street while onlookers chant shame and throw rotten fruit and vegetables?

THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!!

Please. Not naked. That punishes us all.

[TKG]

Big Wayne omitted lying, cheating, obfuscating, smug, deceptive, pompous, shameless and sartorially sinful. What am I missing?


Isn't this the essay question for UNCheats' admissions application?

[BD80]

Isn't this the essay question for UNCheats' admissions application?

The question on the unc admissions app is which color crayon to use ...

"student"-athletes need not even get that question right

[Rich]

Don't forget that losing 200+ wins would drop them below us on the all-time wins chart. They would have nothing left to brag about over Duke. Plus there is the whole shame thing (assuming they ever feel any).


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

[yancem]

Then you need to join fuse and me whilst we sip/sample some New Glarus Apple Ale, Raspberry Tart, Wisconsin Red or Serendipity sometime as they rival some of the best Belgian lambics brewed. The NG products listed above are consistently extremely highly rated on ratebeer and beeradvocate, too. That is, of course, if we have any left by the time you arrive :p .

I can certainly understand your thoughts about fruit beers and there are a few things I don't like in beers (habaneros) and am not that fond of strawberries in beers and fuse doesn't like apricots, but the NG products certainly changed my mind about 20 years ago when I discovered Raspberry Tart and Wisconsin Red.

I'm more of a Reinheitsgebot kind of guy, although I do make some exceptions (coffee-infused imperial stouts would be one). Plus, fruity beers tend to be sweet and turn my stomach. But please enjoy, I don't judge, just sit by the side with a Little Sumpin 😋

[tbyers11]

I'm more of a Reinheitsgebot kind of guy, although I do make some exceptions (coffee-infused imperial stouts would be one). Plus, fruity beers tend to be sweet and turn my stomach. But please enjoy, I don't judge, just sit by the side with a Little Sumpin 😋

As the native Wisconsin beer geek and someone who normally does not like fruit beers, don't knock the New Glarus fruit beers until you try them. They are in a class by themselves. Not quite the same style as the top Belgian lambics.

Lil Sumpin Sumpin is a great beer too 😀

[madscavenger]

The question on the unc admissions app is which color crayon to use ...

"student"-athletes need not even get that question right

NOA3 is out, so they've got to keep their PR app specialist team on alert. Suppose they let them keep the crayon. It might be considered an extra benefit because de facto they already have a locker with their name on it and some snazzy wheels.