UNC Athletics Scandal: UNC releases response to NOA-3

[swood1000]

See http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/university-releases-response-to-ncaas-third-notice-of-allegations/ Actual response is here: https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf

[swood1000]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.


The courses in issue (the "Courses") were available to all students in the same manner. No special arrangements were made for student-athletes in violation of NCAA extra-benefit legislation. Student-athletes made up 29.4 percent of the enrollments in the Courses.

Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.


We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses. Accordingly, unlike Governor Martin, we found that student-athletes were far more represented in paper classes than they were in other courses offered by the department.

Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

[Olympic Fan]

Didn't Wainstein include e-mails that proved that several classes were set up specifically for athletes (including several that included just 1 or 2 athletes)

And there is also a famous e-mail complaining that "frat boys" had found out about classes set up specifically for athletes.

But who cares -- what did you expect from UNC, an admission of guilt?

We can have fun parsing this, but it's really a meaningess moment in the scandal. Get back to me when UNC meets with the COI in mid-August.

[rsvman]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.



Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.



Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?

[Rich]

So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?

Not that it's necessarily OK, but that it's not under the purview of the NCAA to regulate it.

[75Crazie]

Not that it's necessarily OK, but that it's not under the purview of the NCAA to regulate it.
But there was enough athlete participation to remove it from the purview of SACS.

[swood1000]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.

Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.

Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':


We define an “active student-athlete” as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses. Thus, if a student participated on an athletics team as a freshman, did not participate on an athletics team thereafter and took one of the Courses, that individual would not count as an “active student-athlete” who took a Course because they were not subject to NCAA rules. This is different from the approach taken in the Cadwalader, Wickersham and Taft (CWT or the “CWT Report”), which uses a “once an athlete always an athlete approach.”

Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.

[sagegrouse]

But there was enough athlete participation to remove it from the purview of SACS.

Yes, and the athletic department and the student-athlete advisory organization offered services and assistance to athletes with respect to these courses that were not available to other students.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.
One thing UNC is truly world class at... moving the goal posts.

There was a time for me (when I was at Duke and briefly afterwards) that rooting for the ACC included rooting for UNC. Now, if I so much as see one of those toilet water blue stickers on a car, I can literally feel the rage begin to the rise inside me. God I loathe those bastards.

[niveklaen]

Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.

Their new definition would seem to pretend that an athletic department would not have an interest in ensuring that former athletes graduated to maintain their APR.

[OldPhiKap]

So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?


Not that it's necessarily OK, but that it's not under the purview of the NCAA to regulate it.


But there was enough athlete participation to remove it from the purview of SACS.

It's an athademic issue, relating solely to acalethic irregularities. Nothing to see here.

[swood1000]

So let me get this straight: If they provided bogus classes to ALL students, rather than just to athletes, then it's OK??!? WTH?

Yes. Questions of academic standards come under the purview of the accrediting agency, SACS. If the athletes are treated the same as the rest of the students the NCAA is happy. The following shows the way academic misconduct is currently handled (not applicable to this case). If the institution's academic misconduct policy sets a very low bar, and the conduct in question does not violate the policy, then you have to answer 'yes' to all five questions on the right side for there to be an academic misconduct violation, and if it's generally available to all students then that's that.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7434&stc=1

[cato]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.



Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.



Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

Putting aside the question of counting, is the difference between 1/3 and 1/2 all that meaningful? I wonder how many other institutional academic cheating programs exist at UNC, and what percentage of students in those programs are student-athletes?

[DukieInKansas]

Wasn't it determined that the AFAM courses in question, since you didn't go to an actual class, were independent study courses? I thought unc had a limit on the number of independent study courses you could take at one time and participation in these no class classes put some of the athletes over the allowed number. Am I remembering incorrectly?

[crimsondevil]

Yes. Questions of academic standards come under the purview of the accrediting agency, SACS. If the athletes are treated the same as the rest of the students the NCAA is happy. The following shows the way academic misconduct is currently handled (not applicable to this case). If the institution's academic misconduct policy sets a very low bar, and the conduct in question does not violate the policy, then you have to answer 'yes' to all five questions on the right side for there to be an academic misconduct violation, and if it's generally available to all students then that's that.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7434&stc=1

Except that "bogus classes" would probably violate the institution's academic policies, so rsvman's "copycat" example would fall on the left side of the flow chart. For UNC, they were cited and penalized for academic misconduct by SACS, so that's where they would go too, I think, except that this is the post-UNC policy and not applicable (as swood points out).

[Tom B.]

I like the part where they criticize NCAA President Mark Emmert for commenting publicly on the seriousness of the case based on "outside sources." Yeah, the "outside source" upon which Emmert relied was the Wainstein report -- i.e., UNC's own internal investigation.

[rtnorthrup]

Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.

Would this also include, for example, a football player who played in the fall of the semester, but took a "paper class" in the Spring semester? I wonder.

[OldPhiKap]

I like the part where they criticize NCAA President Mark Emmert for commenting publicly on the seriousness of the case based on "outside sources." Yeah, the "outside source" upon which Emmert relied was the Wainstein report -- i.e., UNC's own internal investigation.

It's so inside, it's outside. The Escher Defense.

[plimnko]

Well, we don't have to get too far into the response before we see something peculiar. They say that student-athletes only made up 29.4% of enrollments in the paper classes.



Whereas the Wainstein Report, on page 98, said that student-athletes accounted for 48% of enrollments in irregular classes.



Looking now for the explanation. They're either comparing different classes or different students or they're contradicting Wainstein.

HOLD IT .......do you think they would lie???

[davekay1971]

Without reading I'll summarize:

1) We didn't do anything wrong
2) Maybe we did but it didn't involve athletics
3) Maybe it involved athletics, but not men's basketball or football
4) Maybe it involved athletics, including football, but not men's basketball
5) Maybe it involved some men's basketball, but that was like, only during years where we didn't make a final four or anything cool like that
6) If it involved some men's basketball, during those non-cool years, it was just academics, not really an athletic thing, and therefore outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction
7) Besides, it was a long time ago
8) And anyway, we've suffered enough. Time served, already
9) This is a witch hunt. The NCAA is picking on poor little us. Go hit the big time the big time bad guys like Cleveland St.
10) Everyone does it.
11) How does the upcoming basketball team look anyway...I mean, should we just go ahead and take the hit or is there a chance of raising another banner this year?

Summarized for you. You're welcome.

[BLPOG]

The redefining of student-athlete seems like a really boneheaded move by UNC. Thirty percent is still an outrageously disproportionate number, to the point that the argument that the classes were primarily for athletes or unfairly benefited athletes remains pretty much as strong as with 50%.

That 20% former athletes really makes things look much worse for UNC. While it might mean fewer declarations of ineligibility than a scenario in which all had been active, it actually reinforces the idea that the classes were for athletes. It shows that athletes were admitted to the school without regard for their academic abilities and that they needed these classes as a cover even if they weren't on a team any longer. It shows that they were aware of the classes because of their athletic involvement. The only thing it does sort of in favor of UNC is possibly show that those students chose the classes rather than being told by athletics staff to take them. Of course, to properly evaluate that, you'd have to see why they left the teams, if they ever rejoined, and whether they were active when they enrolled. I'd bet the answers to those questions would not be favorable to UNC's portrayal of events.

[davekay1971]

The redefining of student-athlete seems like a really boneheaded move by UNC. Thirty percent is still an outrageously disproportionate number, to the point that the argument that the classes were primarily for athletes or unfairly benefited athletes remains pretty much as strong as with 50%.

That 20% former athletes really makes things look much worse for UNC. While it might mean fewer declarations of ineligibility than a scenario in which all had been active, it actually reinforces the idea that the classes were for athletes. It shows that athletes were admitted to the school without regard for their academic abilities and that they needed these classes as a cover even if they weren't on a team any longer. It shows that they were aware of the classes because of their athletic involvement. The only thing it does sort of in favor of UNC is possibly show that those students chose the classes rather than being told by athletics staff to take them. Of course, to properly evaluate that, you'd have to see why they left the teams, if they ever rejoined, and whether they were active when they enrolled. I'd bet the answers to those questions would not be favorable to UNC's portrayal of events.

From UNC's comment and the way they define it, they aren't even saying the participants are all former athletes. They strictly define an athlete as someone currently participating in athletics. They IMPLY that Wainstein unreasonably included all these people who had played a sport once upon a time but are not longer involved in athletics. What UNC's definition allows is an athlete who is simply out-of-season to not be counted as an athlete. IE: a football player taking a bogus spring class or men's basketball player making a bogus summer class to keep their GPA above water is, by UNC's entirely invented definition, not actually an athlete.

Every interaction they have with the NCAA is basically to fart in their general direction and wave their private parts at their aunties. Either they really believe the NCAA has no stones at all, or their strategy is to be so obnoxious that they can ultimately claim that whatever punishment the NCAA ultimately gives is the NCAA just being vindictive because UNC was being so obnoxious.

[swood1000]

Except that "bogus classes" would probably violate the institution's academic policies, so rsvman's "copycat" example would fall on the left side of the flow chart. For UNC, they were cited and penalized for academic misconduct by SACS, so that's where they would go too, I think, except that this is the post-UNC policy and not applicable (as swood points out).

That's the loophole though — the institution's academic policies. For example, Syracuse was charged with improper academic support but Syracuse determined that this did not violate its academic misconduct policy and claimed it had to end there because the NCAA had stated that schools had the final say on academic misconduct. The enforcement staff turned around and charged extra benefits. (That's one reason they came out with the new rules.)

Furthermore, the position of UNC from the beginning was that these classes should be considered valid since there is no evidence that the students did not put a lot of work into them. Only after pressure from SACS did they announce that the classes would not be good for graduation.

In their response to NOA-2, in discussing the charges against Boxill, UNC said, "The new NCAA rules adopted as NCAA Proposal 2015-66, currently in effect, substantially changed the rules that pertain to unauthorized academic assistance. Under these new rules, the enforcement staff likely would not pursue a violation in the circumstances presented here."

Also, it's kind of an odd ball type of setup and might not violate the published academic policies. Or put another way, schools such as UNC will have an incentive to formulate their policies tightly, to minimize the possibility that a provision, construed broadly, could be seen to prohibit many types of things.

[Tom B.]

Yes, and the athletic department and the student-athlete advisory organization offered services and assistance to athletes with respect to these courses that were not available to other students.


And let's not forget this:


7435


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

[swood1000]

Would this also include, for example, a football player who played in the fall of the semester, but took a "paper class" in the Spring semester? I wonder.

I think so, because the athlete out of season is still governed by NCAA rules. They said:

"We define an “active student-athlete” as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses."

They used 'and' instead of 'or' but it's inconceivable that they would make a blunder so transparent as trying to exclude football player in the Spring. I mean, their lawyers wouldn't open themselves up to that kind of ridicule would they?

[OldPhiKap]

I think so, because the athlete out of season is still governed by NCAA rules. They said:

"We define an “active student-athlete” as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses."

They used 'and' instead of 'or' but it's inconceivable that they would make a blunder so transparent as trying to exclude football player in the Spring. I mean, their lawyers wouldn't open themselves up to that kind of ridicule would they?

Frankly, I would LOVE to see a pattern that football players took these courses excessively in the spring. It would establish that this was a directed activity from the football team.

[Indoor66]

And let's not forget this:


7435


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

Maybe it does. Patience, Grasshopper.

[Olympic Fan]

And let's not forget this:


7435


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?


Great point. I don't see why everybody is sweating UNC's absurd defense.

(1) as noted before, saying phony classes are open to all students is no defense -- FSU was hammered for a phony class that was open to all students and had a majority of non-athletes involved.

(2) We have evidence -- the slide show presentation that Tom B. cites and dozens of e-mails uncovered by Wainstein that show that many of the phony classes were set up specifically for athletes -- often at the request of the sports' academic advisors.

I am frankly amazed that this is the best UNC has got after $18 million in legal fees.

[MarkD83]

Did unc exclude folks in summer school from their calculation. That would be hilarious

[MarkD83]

Great point. I don't see why everybody is sweating UNC's absurd defense.

(1) as noted before, saying phony classes are open to all students is no defense -- FSU was hammered for a phony class that was open to all students and had a majority of non-athletes involved.

(2) We have evidence -- the slide show presentation that Tom B. cites and dozens of e-mails uncovered by Wainstein that show that many of the phony classes were set up specifically for athletes -- often at the request of the sports' academic advisors.

I am frankly amazed that this is the best UNC has got after $18 million in legal fees.

They did get two final fours and a national championship

[devildeac]

And let's not forget this:


7435


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

This appears to be the slide that budwom referenced as the one he wants made into a 6' x 6' banner for the COI to see.

[crdaul]

Obnoxious, hypocritical asshats!

[SilkyJ]

All I know is OPK was WAYYYY off. He said they'd release this on the Friday before memorial day and here they went and released it on a totally different day before memorial day. (In his defense, that day also ends in Y)

[YmoBeThere]

Wasn't it determined that the AFAM courses in question, since you didn't go to an actual class, were independent study courses? I thought unc had a limit on the number of independent study courses you could take at one time and participation in these no class classes put some of the athletes over the allowed number. Am I remembering incorrectly?

I think your recollections are correct.

What I would be really interested to know is how many of the course enrollees were ineligible at the time they were taking the class(and thus not active) but used the AFAM courses to regain eligibility.

[sagegrouse]

I think your recollections are correct.

What I would be really interested to know is how many of the course enrollees were ineligible at the time they were taking the class(and thus not active) but used the AFAM courses to regain eligibility.

Let's not forget that the independent study courses were 400-level courses, as well.

[martydoesntfoul]

Seems like they're in so far deep that there's no turning back now. Not sure if this type of strategy has a name so I'll call it the Big Lie defense. Of course there's nothing to see here. This is all ridiculous and a waste of time, and if we say that enough people will believe it. Man I hope it doesn't work.

[Owen Meany]

I think your recollections are correct.

What I would be really interested to know is how many of the course enrollees were ineligible at the time they were taking the class(and thus not active) but used the AFAM courses to regain eligibility.

The drop from roughly 50% to 30% is huge (40% of the athletes Wainstain identified are not considered athlete's by UNC's definition). It is very difficult to imagine what could possibly account for nearly half of these kids, who were at least at some point an athlete, under any definition becoming a non-athlete. This was a very large group of athletes. There is no way that 40% were kids who dropped their sport.


Unless I am missing something, it would seem like there must be something like you have suggested (athletes trying to regain eligibility). But I can not possibly imagine UNC using this tactic because they would basically be highlighting and underscoring the fact that the classes were used for fraudulent purposes. Pointing out that nearly half of the athletes were ineligible would be malpractice. But, in my opinion, so was challenging the watered down 1st amended NOA.


I think there is a chance UNC has, perhaps, once again been too clever for their own good. It will be interesting to find out exactly how they justify challenging the classification of almost half of the athletes Wainstain identified. It will be ironic if they unwittingly help expose the purpose of the entire scam.

[Devil549]

This is really very simple case but UNC trying to make it more difficult....plain & simple:

UNC put SA (student athletes) in easy classes and they were given benefits all students do not receive. Yes the frat boys and other students learned about the classes probably from the SA....it is not rocket science.

Any student taking 400 level classes in the summer before their freshmen year is receiving a benefit not available to all students.

Also this is a textbook case of LOIC...Lack of Institutional Control.....an Adminsitrative Asst/ Secretary graded papers and gave final grades for said classes. Also athletic academic advisors recommend these classes. They communicated with said Secretary and sometimes added SA after the drop/add date.

IMO if NCAA does not punish UNC then why have rules and the NCAA to enforce them?

[Olympic Fan]

This is really very simple case but UNC trying to make it more difficult...plain & simple:

UNC put SA (student athletes) in easy classes and they were given benefits all students do not receive. Yes the frat boys and other students learned about the classes probably from the SA...it is not rocket science.

Any student taking 400 level classes in the summer before their freshmen year is receiving a benefit not available to all students.

Also this is a textbook case of LOIC...Lack of Institutional Control....an Adminsitrative Asst/ Secretary graded papers and gave final grades for said classes. Also athletic academic advisors recommend these classes. They communicated with said Secretary and sometimes added SA after the drop/add date.

IMO if NCAA does not punish UNC then why have rules and the NCAA to enforce them?

Easy classes would actually be okay.

These are phony classes -- classes that never met, were never taught and in many cases were listed as taught by professors who had no idea that their names were used. Some of the classes required a short term paper -- which was graded by a secretary, not an educator. And the same papers were recycled year after year.

I've had UNC apologists tell me that there's nothing to the scandal because every school has easy classes and they stick athletes there. Well, that's true.

But in UNC's case, these are not easy classes -- they are fictional classes or, as Wainstein called them, paper classes. He found dozens and dozens of such classes covering more than 18 years and involving more than 1,500 athletes. We don't know the names of athletes who took advantage of the scam -- except one - Rashad McCants in the spring of 2005, when he was a big part of UNC's national championship team. We know because he released his transcripts and every course he took that semester was a phony class. We don't know about his teammates, except we know that the top seven players on that team were all majoring in African-American Studies.

[dukelion]

Andrew Carter has an article up about the 10 most important arguments UNC makes in their response.....this one made me chuckle.

5. Wainstein got some things wrong … and his report shouldn’t be used as evidence.

University leaders praised Ken Wainstein’s report when it was released in October 2014. Wainstein, a former federal prosecutor who is now being considered to lead the FBI, concluded that for 18 years the African studies courses in question helped athletes, including many football and basketball players, remain eligible.

[Read the Wainstein report]

Despite the earlier praise, though, UNC in its latest response distanced itself from the Wainstein report, and also rebutted some of the data Wainstein presented. He found that athletes accounted for approximately 47 percent of enrollments in the classes. In its response, UNC said then-current athletes accounted for 37.2 percent of the enrollments.

UNC argues that the Wainstein report “was never intended to be used for NCAA purposes” and that “it does not reference a single NCAA bylaw.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article152704974.html

[UrinalCake]

I thought that there was language in one of the NOA's that specifically said even though regular students were in the fake classes, the numbers were disproportionate and they still constituted an impermissible benefit.

UNC is grasping at straws here. All of the evidence that they cheated is out in the open. They have spent three years delaying and arguing, but it's time to face the music.

[gep]

I think so, because the athlete out of season is still governed by NCAA rules. They said:

"We define an “active student-athlete” as one who was participating in intercollegiate athletics and governed by NCAA rules at the time they took one of the Courses."

They used 'and' instead of 'or' but it's inconceivable that they would make a blunder so transparent as trying to exclude football player in the Spring. I mean, their lawyers wouldn't open themselves up to that kind of ridicule would they?

I obviously don't get this. If unc defines these "student-athletes" are not "student-athletes" when not participating in their sports season... so not governed by NCAA rules... can they take part-time jobs when their sport is not in season? Like all other non-athlete students? What about commercial advertisements? And every other kind of "extra benefits" that don't count if not governed by the NCAA... :confused: Would unc allow these "extra benefits" when a sport is not in season? I bet not...

[martydoesntfoul]

Welcome back Mr. Kane!
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article152707069.html

This is compelling -- from the Crowder interview earlier this month -- none of which I had seen yet:

She (Crowder) said she asked Nyang’oro what grades he offered. He told her A’s and B’s.

“He said you have to work to get a C,” Crowder said. She added that she saw some papers that she thought were “C” quality, and in some cases the student accepted the grade and in others she let them redo the paper for a higher grade."

Crowder acknowledged that she asked the program to send her lists of athletes to be enrolled, while other students often had to visit her office and make their cases.

Sulentic asked Crowder about one of those counselors’ take on her grading: “It was well known that if Debbie graded it, the grades would be high just that simple.”

Crowder said that was just opinion, not “based on any fact."

[smvalkyries]

Not sure what has taken me so long but.. I have finally had in with UNC-CH (eat). Like Dr RosenRosen and since I live on the left coast and don't have to deal with their alumni on a regular basis I used to respect UNC-Ch and actually root for them especially out of conference. At this point I feel betrayed- our once respected and worthy rival has been exposed as nothing more than a semi-pro sports institution and every single one of the degrees it has bestowed has been diminished. At least until the do the right thing by admitting and fixing their disgraceful activity and maybe even then to me they will remain more like Maryland or for the old timers South Carolina than a respected rival. Sporting events with them I will consider as exhibitions similar to baseball playing the Durham Bulls. Yes I still want to beat them but more because I feel disdain for them than the desire to beat a rival. This Carolina is your true penalty- you have lost the best rivalry in college basketball. You have lost the respect of an esteemed academic rival. You remind me of a group of dirty brackish water reptiles except even with them we generally liked and respected Maryland basketball players. Maybe South Carolina is a better example but even Mike Grosso was supposed to go to class.
Yes Carolina it won't be the same without you and yes you have caused us to lose our rival as well. Carolina you are NO LONGER OUR RIVAL- Much to my regret YOU DON'T DESERVE TO ASSOCIATE WITH DUKE. (and I will reduce my employment offers if any, to UNC-CH alumni? by at least 10% in the future.)

Steve Poucher Class of 1970.

[BigWayne]

Big Wayne I believe, who has been pretty spot-on throughout on this issue.

Big Wayne, what's the COI gonna do?

Well I was a few hours off but got the right day. I guess they figured they had to do a presser to get some supporting BS for the reporters to put in their stories. I'm sure they will all be on their way to the beach tomorrow and unavailable for comment.

I haven't had time to read it today because I have been getting ready for the weekend. (-1.8 ft tide on Saturday. Time to dig clams.) Thankfully a bunch of you pulled the main points out for me. Sort of a cliff notes version I guess.

This approach of nitpicking and claiming the NCAA doesn't have authority is more of the crap they pulled in NOA2. The NCAA response was to double down and up the charges. I don't think Sankey is going to buy it this time either. Based on the last Sankey response, I think this attempt is just a setup for some future attempt at a lawsuit or some sort of appeal. They surely couldn't think this would be well received at the NCAA.

I think the previously announced timeline of a COI meeting in August is still on track.

[wsb3]

At least until the do the right thing by admitting and fixing their disgraceful activity...
Steve Poucher Class of 1970.

Well, I think we can forget about UNC doing the right thing. That ship sailed long ago.

They have no shame...

[devildeac]

From Luke DeCock in the N&O:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/luke-decock/article152660089.html

Some gems:

"It remains a cynical defense, one predicated on legalese and semantics and technicalities and straw men (“media accounts”), which is revealing because when it serves North Carolina’s purposes to be contrite, as the university was when the Wainstein Report was released or in negotiating with its academic accreditors, the university has no trouble being contrite. When the Wainstein Report is a complication, it tries to lawyer its way out from under it."

And:

"Begging for forgiveness with one hand while slapping away the NCAA with the other, it makes you wonder whether the university, collectively, really feels any guilt at all for this cancer that rotted within for so long. Either way, the scandal remains an embarrassing stain on North Carolina’s reputation whether it technically violated NCAA bylaws or not."


And:

"But the case is going to be heard, finally. The issues, never more starkly defined, will be argued. North Carolina faces the difficult task of winning over an infractions committee that is both judge and prosecutor, but the university’s position is clear, even if its conscience shouldn’t be, no matter what the NCAA decides."

(bolded mine)

Beyond shameless.

[kmspeaks]

I obviously don't get this. If unc defines these "student-athletes" are not "student-athletes" when not participating in their sports season... so not governed by NCAA rules... can they take part-time jobs when their sport is not in season? Like all other non-athlete students? What about commercial advertisements? And every other kind of "extra benefits" that don't count if not governed by the NCAA... :confused: Would unc allow these "extra benefits" when a sport is not in season? I bet not...

This is a minor point and not really related to this thread but I can't help it because this is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. There is no NCAA rule preventing student athletes from working. They can even, with some stipulations, work camps and clinics or give lessons in the sport they play to earn money in the off season.

Relevant bylaw is 12.4 on page 69 if anyone is interested. (http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/genrel/auto_pdf/2015-16/misc_non_event/NCAA_Division_I_Manual.pdf)

[PackMan97]

I think UNC just brought the death penalty into play. The only acceptable response to a member institution refusing to play fair, accept responsibility and self punish is to put them down like a rabid dog.

UNC athletics should be given a two year break, but I'm okay if the NCAA just cancels their membership entirely.

[Devils Librarian]

Easy classes would actually be okay.

These are phony classes -- classes that never met, were never taught and in many cases were listed as taught by professors who had no idea that their names were used. Some of the classes required a short term paper -- which was graded by a secretary, not an educator. And the same papers were recycled year after year.

I've had UNC apologists tell me that there's nothing to the scandal because every school has easy classes and they stick athletes there. Well, that's true.

But in UNC's case, these are not easy classes -- they are fictional classes or, as Wainstein called them, paper classes. He found dozens and dozens of such classes covering more than 18 years and involving more than 1,500 athletes. We don't know the names of athletes who took advantage of the scam -- except one - Rashad McCants in the spring of 2005, when he was a big part of UNC's national championship team. We know because he released his transcripts and every course he took that semester was a phony class. We don't know about his teammates, except we know that the top seven players on that team were all majoring in African-American Studies.

Does anyone know if Debbie Crowder has a Masters degree? If the rules for accreditation are the same at UNC as they are at Duke I believe the person "teaching" the class has to have a degree higher than the students. For example, a graduate student cannot teach a class of graduate students; the class has to be taught by someone with a PhD or who is studying for their PhD.

[Kfanarmy]

Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.


So if a guy is ineligible for a semester because of grades, and they put him into the bogus class to get his GPA up, he doesn't count as an "active athlete" while his GPA is subpar?

[Kfanarmy]

The redefining of student-athlete seems like a really boneheaded move by UNC. Thirty percent is still an outrageously disproportionate number, to the point that the argument that the classes were primarily for athletes or unfairly benefited athletes remains pretty much as strong as with 50%.

That 20% former athletes really makes things look much worse for UNC. While it might mean fewer declarations of ineligibility than a scenario in which all had been active, it actually reinforces the idea that the classes were for athletes. It shows that athletes were admitted to the school without regard for their academic abilities and that they needed these classes as a cover even if they weren't on a team any longer. It shows that they were aware of the classes because of their athletic involvement. The only thing it does sort of in favor of UNC is possibly show that those students chose the classes rather than being told by athletics staff to take them. Of course, to properly evaluate that, you'd have to see why they left the teams, if they ever rejoined, and whether they were active when they enrolled. I'd bet the answers to those questions would not be favorable to UNC's portrayal of events.

I doubt it. I suspect the 20% were people in an ineligible status because of grades...I would bet they were "inactive" while they were taking these classes, then became active again when their grades were back up.

[budwom]

I think UNC just brought the death penalty into play. The only acceptable response to a member institution refusing to play fair, accept responsibility and self punish is to put them down like a rabid dog.

UNC athletics should be given a two year break, but I'm okay if the NCAA just cancels their membership entirely.

Absolutely not going to happen, as much as they deserve it.

[BD80]

I doubt it. I suspect the 20% were people in an ineligible status because of grades...I would bet they were "inactive" while they were taking these classes, then became active again when their grades were back up.

Wouldn't such "students" still be on scholarship? Wouldn't that make them subject to NCAA regulations?

[Devil2]

Wouldn't such "students" still be on scholarship? Wouldn't that make them subject to NCAA regulations?

The point is that UNC response creates a whole new definition of student athlete for their analysis that no one else does and totally different than what the NCAA uses in all the metrics it uses and publishes

[Devil2]

The point is that UNC response creates a whole new definition of student athlete for their analysis that no one else does and totally different than what the NCAA uses in all the metrics it uses and publishes

Classic. case of if you don't like the answer, redefine the question

[Troublemaker]

The drop from roughly 50% to 30% is huge (40% of the athletes Wainstain identified are not considered athlete's by UNC's definition). It is very difficult to imagine what could possibly account for nearly half of these kids, who were at least at some point an athlete, under any definition becoming a non-athlete. This was a very large group of athletes. There is no way that 40% were kids who dropped their sport.

Unless I am missing something, it would seem like there must be something like you have suggested (athletes trying to regain eligibility).

I loved davekay's theory below. It seems reasonable that at any one time, 40% of athletes are out of season while taking classes, e.g. football players in spring semester.

It would also be an utterly ridiculous and hilarious re-defining of "student-athlete." But I think UNC is capable of trying to run with that argument.


From UNC's comment and the way they define it, they aren't even saying the participants are all former athletes. They strictly define an athlete as someone currently participating in athletics. They IMPLY that Wainstein unreasonably included all these people who had played a sport once upon a time but are not longer involved in athletics. What UNC's definition allows is an athlete who is simply out-of-season to not be counted as an athlete. IE: a football player taking a bogus spring class or men's basketball player making a bogus summer class to keep their GPA above water is, by UNC's entirely invented definition, not actually an athlete.

[sammy3469]

Wouldn't such "students" still be on scholarship? Wouldn't that make them subject to NCAA regulations?

I would really love to see UNC's calculation which they conveniently didn't include. They're basically reclassifying 390 "enrollments" as non-SA. To get to that number that means it's a lot of football or "other non-revenue sports" stuck around after they were either injured or decided to punt the sport which surprisingly doesn't seem that believable.

BTW there are some juicy details in the exhibits:

Exhibit 1-21 is an e-mail from the NCAA to UNC where they list the benefits specific SAs received. UNC left in the SAs tutors so we know they NCAA is looking at what Walden was doing.

Exhibit 1-28 list all the classes from 99-09 with at least 50 enrollments where the average GPA was over 3.50. A whole lot of the typical Phys Ed and Music classes. But then you get to AFAM190 with 1389 enrollments and an average GPA of 3.70. It sticks out like a sore thumb.

There's also this tidbit at the end of their response, so they're admitting their WBB program is done:


The women’s basketball student-athletes identified in Allegation 1 as recipients of “extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements,” participated in team championships with the women’s basketball team (in various capacities) during the 2002-03 through 2012-13 seasons. The violations adversely affected each student-athlete’s eligibility for future
competition at the point in time in which the extra benefit was provided, per the terms of Bylaw 16.11.2.1, and thus the student-athletes’ participation in team championships during the 2002-03 through 2012-13 seasons is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4. A chart summarizing the years of competition and number of contests competed (including championship
participation) for each involved student-athlete is provided as Exhibit D-9.


Of course, Exhibit D-9 appears to be left out of what they released.

[swood1000]

Their new definition would seem to pretend that an athletic department would not have an interest in ensuring that former athletes graduated to maintain their APR.

I think that this is the key to the question as to whether non-current athletes should be included in the count of athletes taking paper classes. If we assume that UNC has an incentive to make sure that athletes do not drop out and fail to graduate, UNC will probably encourage them to continue to use the services of the athletics academic counselors (ASPSA). If so, and if they were steered to the classes by the academic counselors, what difference does it make that they were not currently on a team? Perhaps there was no extra-benefit with respect to them if they were not ‘governed by NCAA rules’ at the time, but it still demonstrates powerfully how the ASPSA machine was pushing people into these classes.

UNC said that they subtracted 171 people from the number used by Wainstein. These would be the people who at one time were student athletes but not when they took the paper classes. I’d be interested in seeing the total number of students who were student-athletes for at least one semester and who were ‘not governed by NCAA rules’ for at least one semester, and learning what percentage of them took the paper classes, and how that compares with the percentage of non-athletes who took the classes. Maybe the enforcement staff will touch on this in their reply.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Here's the answer. They redefined the term 'student-athlete':



Looking forward to the enforcement staff response to this.

that a paper from a woman basketball player had its grade raised. Paper had a couple of problems - it was on the wrong subject and had been handed it earlier by another student. Athletic department was involved in getting the grade raised.

No reason for the NCAA to care I guess.

SoCal

[English]

I think that this is the key to the question as to whether non-current athletes should be included in the count of athletes taking paper classes. If we assume that UNC has an incentive to make sure that athletes do not drop out and fail to graduate, UNC will probably encourage them to continue to use the services of the athletics academic counselors (ASPSA). If so, and if they were steered to the classes by the academic counselors, what difference does it make that they were not currently on a team? Perhaps there was no extra-benefit with respect to them if they were not ‘governed by NCAA rules’ at the time, but it still demonstrates powerfully how the ASPSA machine was pushing people into these classes.

UNC said that they subtracted 171 people from the number used by Wainstein. These would be the people who at one time were student athletes but not when they took the paper classes. I’d be interested in seeing the total number of students who were student-athletes for at least one semester and who were ‘not governed by NCAA rules’ for at least one semester, and learning what percentage of them took the paper classes, and how that compares with the percentage of non-athletes who took the classes. Maybe the enforcement staff will touch on this in their reply.

Sorry for the ignorance, but by the vague timeline mentioned many times here, the COI hearing is likely to be sometime at the end of the summer (~August). Am I correct in assuming, from the bolded above, that before the COI hearing, the NCAA enforcement staff will reply to the latest unx response?

[53n206]

swood1000 noted:
UNC said that they subtracted 171 people from the number used by Wainstein. These would be the people who at one time were student athletes but not when they took the paper classes. I’d be interested in seeing the total number of students who were student-athletes for at least one semester and who were ‘not governed by NCAA rules’ for at least one semester, and learning what percentage of them took the paper classes, and how that compares with the percentage of non-athletes who took the classes. Maybe the enforcement staff will touch on this in their reply.

And to know how many returned to student-athlete status after taking the classes.

[wsb3]

From Luke DeCock in the N&O:

"Begging for forgiveness with one hand while slapping away the NCAA with the other, it makes you wonder whether the university, collectively, really feels any guilt at all for this cancer that rotted within for so long.


That was a line that jumped out at me as well Devildeac..

WRAL in their morning quick news cap stated how Bubba says it is unfair how the NCAA has stretched this investigation out for 3 years..Wow! You have to be an accomplished liar to say that with a straight face..

[CameronBlue]

I think UNC just brought the death penalty into play. The only acceptable response to a member institution refusing to play fair, accept responsibility and self punish is to put them down like a rabid dog.

UNC athletics should be given a two year break, but I'm okay if the NCAA just cancels their membership entirely.

The extent of UNC's disregard for any coherent educational mission and apparent contempt for the general welfare of its students by any definition conjures up images of a forced labor culture. We have statements, on record, of UNC football coaches stating that team members obligation is to THE PROGRAM, an implied threat. UNC Men's and Womens Basketball operated similarly. Ol Roy was concerned about clustering but chose to look the other way. The NCAA should hire a bunch of civil rights lawyers to litigate a charge of human trafficking against UNC.

[swood1000]

Sorry for the ignorance, but by the vague timeline mentioned many times here, the COI hearing is likely to be sometime at the end of the summer (~August). Am I correct in assuming, from the bolded above, that before the COI hearing, the NCAA enforcement staff will reply to the latest unx response?

UNC responded to NOA-3 on 5/16/2017. The enforcement staff has 60 days to reply, putting the deadline for that at 7/15/2017. (With NOA-2 they took 49 days to reply.)


19.7.3 Submissions by Enforcement Staff. Within 60 days after the institution and involved individuals, if any, submit written responses to the notice of allegations, the enforcement staff shall submit a written reply to the hearing panel, and pertinent portions to an involved individual or institution. In addition to submitting its reply and after the prehearing conference, the enforcement staff shall prepare a statement of the case, which shall set forth a brief history of the case, a summary of the parties’ positions on each allegation and a list of any remaining items of disagreement. An involved individual will be provided those portions of the statement in which he or she is named.


Also within that 60 days there must be a prehearing conference between the enforcement staff and involved individuals. The deadline for the submission of written material to the COI is 30 days prior to the date of the hearing, which is probably why they named hearing dates of August 16 and 17, 2017.

[LastRowFan]

swood1000 noted:
UNC said that they subtracted 171 people from the number used by Wainstein. These would be the people who at one time were student athletes but not when they took the paper classes. I’d be interested in seeing the total number of students who were student-athletes for at least one semester and who were ‘not governed by NCAA rules’ for at least one semester, and learning what percentage of them took the paper classes, and how that compares with the percentage of non-athletes who took the classes. Maybe the enforcement staff will touch on this in their reply.

Would the NCAA have access to ALL of the (unredacted) registration data, so that the NCAA can draw their own conclusions about athlete and non-athlete enrollments, applying their own definitions? If, so perhaps it doesn't really matter how UNC defines "athletes" here. Or are they somehow reliant on UNC providing this information?

[swood1000]

Would the NCAA have access to ALL of the (unredacted) registration data, so that the NCAA can draw their own conclusions about athlete and non-athlete enrollments, applying their own definitions? If, so perhaps it doesn't really matter how UNC defines "athletes" here. Or are they somehow reliant on UNC providing this information?

Yes, the enforcement staff has access to the unredacted data, so I expect them to debunk this maneuver.

[UrinalCake]

I've been reading through the transcript of the NCAA's interview with Crowder. It's really interesting. It appears that Crowder was prepped pretty well for this interview by the UNC PR firm, because she often makes statements such as "it was for all students, not just the athletes" and "it was all done to help the students" even such a statement it is out of context of the question being asked, and without being prompted. Mostly she seems to be answering honestly though. She strikes me as someone who is very humble and saw herself as a fairly low-level worker whose job was initially to manage the office of the AFAM department and "order paper towels" and the like. When asked to do things from the higher ups, she simply did them and didn't question why. After Nyang'oro came in, this eventually grew into handling requests such as adding students past the deadline, enrolling them in closed courses (even though she had no idea why the course was closed, or whether the student being added was an athlete), and even signing grade rolls for Nyangoro who was often traveling. Eventually there were lots and lots of requests from the athletic advising department to add students into closed classes, and the numbers became so large that she would ask the department to just email her a list of student names, rather than having the students come into her office. She seemed content to say yes to everything, to add students regardless of the reasons or who was making the request, because she felt she was helping them. At one point the interviewer asks her if ALL of the requests to add students into closed courses came from students in "special circumstances" (which she understands as students who realize they are not going to graduate and thus need to be added to a course) and she says yes.

The way Crowder describes it, she simply did what she was told and did not want to make waves. When requests came in she would approve them. But you can read between the lines and see that the athletics advisors had clearly created a system to enroll athletes into the fake classes. Not sure if I believe Crowder that she was really so naive as to not see this was happening. If true, then she is either really dumb or really gullible. She claims to make no distinction between whether the student involved was an athlete or not (again, probably something she was prepped to say) yet she freely admits that the vast majority of requests came from the academic advising office and not from other departments.

I haven't gotten all the way through it but will continue reading; but my Friday is pretty much shot :)

[wsb3]

Not sure if I believe Crowder that she was really so naive as to not see this was happening.:)

Considering when UNC lost she was sometimes so sick she could not report to work the next day...No, I do not believe for one second she was that naive..

[English]

I've been reading through the transcript of the NCAA's interview with Crowder. It's really interesting. It appears that Crowder was prepped pretty well for this interview by the UNC PR firm, because she often makes statements such as "it was for all students, not just the athletes" and "it was all done to help the students" even such a statement it is out of context of the question being asked, and without being prompted. Mostly she seems to be answering honestly though. She strikes me as someone who is very humble and saw herself as a fairly low-level worker whose job was initially to manage the office of the AFAM department and "order paper towels" and the like. When asked to do things from the higher ups, she simply did them and didn't question why. After Nyang'oro came in, this eventually grew into handling requests such as adding students past the deadline, enrolling them in closed courses (even though she had no idea why the course was closed, or whether the student being added was an athlete), and even signing grade rolls for Nyangoro who was often traveling. Eventually there were lots and lots of requests from the athletic advising department to add students into closed classes, and the numbers became so large that she would ask the department to just email her a list of student names, rather than having the students come into her office. She seemed content to say yes to everything, to add students regardless of the reasons or who was making the request, because she felt she was helping them. At one point the interviewer asks her if ALL of the requests to add students into closed courses came from students in "special circumstances" (which she understands as students who realize they are not going to graduate and thus need to be added to a course) and she says yes.

The way Crowder describes it, she simply did what she was told and did not want to make waves. When requests came in she would approve them. But you can read between the lines and see that the athletics advisors had clearly created a system to enroll athletes into the fake classes. Not sure if I believe Crowder that she was really so naive as to not see this was happening. If true, then she is either really dumb or really gullible. She claims to make no distinction between whether the student involved was an athlete or not (again, probably something she was prepped to say) yet she freely admits that the vast majority of requests came from the academic advising office and not from other departments.

I haven't gotten all the way through it but will continue reading; but my Friday is pretty much shot :)

That may be the narrative she would like to cultivate, but the emails tell a different tale (than that she was just a "yes man" and did what she was told). In a number of email exchanges, she clarifies what she can and cannot do...going so far in one instance to say (paraphrasing) 'I can't do something as egregious as create a summer class just for two athletes, because we have to keep a modicum of integrity.'

I would love for the enforcement staff to take her words, juxtapose them with a robust sampling of the emails in which her "woe is me" narrative is absolutely decimated by the actions described and to which she agrees and by the instructions she gives.

[Tom B.]

Seems like they're in so far deep that there's no turning back now. Not sure if this type of strategy has a name so I'll call it the Big Lie defense.

Also known as the Nifong Strategy. Just keep doubling down in the hopes that somewhere down the line, something happens that vindicates your gamble.

[UrinalCake]

For any UNC-CHeat fans who want to claim this is all about "easy classes":


KS: Uh, how were the papers graded for the special arrangements courses?

DC: Any of the papers that he did not – okay. I gave all the papers – put all the papers in Julius’ office, okay. And Julius, when he would pass through on the weekend would grade some of the papers. So, two things here, I had mailed him – he – when this first began, I was horrified, frankly. I didn’t want to grade a paper. I was an English major who did not want to teach, therefore, I didn’t want to grade a paper. First time it happened, he was out of town, graduation was occurring, he told me to do it. Next time it happened, he told me to do it again. By that time I had seen many papers. I could look at a paper and tell if it fit his requirements or not.

??: Had you discussed those requirements?

DC: We had discussed his requirements. I – I asked him where all of his grades, both in class and independent study. Because he taught in class, classes too. I asked him did he ever give any grades other than A’s and B’s and he said no. He said you have to work to get a C. In other words, it really – I identified some of those and, both, you know, any student -- some students I said, you know, this is a not great paper, it’s a “C” paper at best. And in cases (unintelligible) that’s fine, all I need is credit hours to be a C, let’s move on. Well, most of the time, either pride or whatever they wanted, they wanted, umm, they wanted a better grade. I said, “Well, you have to redo the paper.”

KS: Sure.

DC: And, you know, I checked ‘em for, for appropriateness and topic. Umm, we returned many of paper for no bibliography or end notes.

KS: Sure.

DC: Umm, etc. Did I read every word of every paper? No. Did my faculty members read every word of every paper was submitted to them? No.

KS: Sure. Umm, did it ever give you pause that there was a faculty person supervising a course who wasn’t there? Was hard to reach? Couldn’t find? You had to take over some of the duties?

DC: I wasn’t happy about it. What was I gonna do? This is my boss.

[aimo]

Not sure if I believe Crowder that she was really so naive as to not see this was happening.

No way. She knew exactly what she was doing. From beginning to end.

[Duke79UNLV77]

No way. She knew exactly what she was doing. From beginning to end.

She knew enough not to sign her "affidavit" under penalty of perjury.

[BD80]

...

There's also this tidbit at the end of their response, so they're admitting their WBB program is done:

The women’s basketball student-athletes identified in Allegation 1 as recipients of “extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements,” participated in team championships with the women’s basketball team (in various capacities) during the 2002-03 through 2012-13 seasons. The violations adversely affected each student-athlete’s eligibility for future competition at the point in time in which the extra benefit was provided, per the terms of Bylaw 16.11.2.1, and thus the student-athletes’ participation in team championships during the 2002-03 through 2012-13 seasons is subject to the provisions of NCAA Bylaws 31.2.2.3 and 31.2.2.4. A chart summarizing the years of competition and number of contests competed (including championship participation) for each involved student-athlete is provided as Exhibit D-9.


Of course, Exhibit D-9 appears to be left out of what they released.

Wow. Completely thrown under the bus. Not even ol' roy has ever run over so many discarded comrades.

Poor carolina: the time to plead guilty to the lesser (non-revenue) offenses has long since passed.

[Tom B.]

I've been reading through the transcript of the NCAA's interview with Crowder. It's really interesting. It appears that Crowder was prepped pretty well for this interview by the UNC PR firm, because she often makes statements such as "it was for all students, not just the athletes" and "it was all done to help the students" even such a statement it is out of context of the question being asked, and without being prompted. Mostly she seems to be answering honestly though. She strikes me as someone who is very humble and saw herself as a fairly low-level worker whose job was initially to manage the office of the AFAM department and "order paper towels" and the like. When asked to do things from the higher ups, she simply did them and didn't question why. After Nyang'oro came in, this eventually grew into handling requests such as adding students past the deadline, enrolling them in closed courses (even though she had no idea why the course was closed, or whether the student being added was an athlete), and even signing grade rolls for Nyangoro who was often traveling. Eventually there were lots and lots of requests from the athletic advising department to add students into closed classes, and the numbers became so large that she would ask the department to just email her a list of student names, rather than having the students come into her office. She seemed content to say yes to everything, to add students regardless of the reasons or who was making the request, because she felt she was helping them. At one point the interviewer asks her if ALL of the requests to add students into closed courses came from students in "special circumstances" (which she understands as students who realize they are not going to graduate and thus need to be added to a course) and she says yes.

The way Crowder describes it, she simply did what she was told and did not want to make waves. When requests came in she would approve them. But you can read between the lines and see that the athletics advisors had clearly created a system to enroll athletes into the fake classes. Not sure if I believe Crowder that she was really so naive as to not see this was happening. If true, then she is either really dumb or really gullible. She claims to make no distinction between whether the student involved was an athlete or not (again, probably something she was prepped to say) yet she freely admits that the vast majority of requests came from the academic advising office and not from other departments.

I haven't gotten all the way through it but will continue reading; but my Friday is pretty much shot :)

They should also juxtapose her "I was just following instructions" shtick with the statements of UNC's own university officials when the Wainstein report was released in October of 2014, in which they accepted Wainstein's findings and threw Nyang'oro and Crowder under the bus as the joint architects of the scam -- up to and including the words of UNC's then-President Tom Ross, who actually gave Crowder top billing over Nyang'oro when he labeled it "the Crowder-Nyang'oro scheme."

http://www.greensboro.com/blogs/thinking_out_loud/shameful-day-in-chapel-hill-the-nyang-oro-crowder-scheme/article_a743a866-5a25-11e4-ac6c-001a4bcf6878.html


When they got word that Crowder was about to retire in 2009, some academic counselors for the football program warned athletes that the gravy train was about to end. Better sign up while you can.

But not to worry, Nyang’oro agreed, at the behest of some academic counselors, to continue the counterfeit courses himself.

How could this happen? The report made it clear: Denial. Institutional arrogance. Self-interest. A failure by the higher administration to act on obvious “red flags.” Holes in the peer review process of professors who are department chairpersons.

And, most of all, in Wainstein’s words, “glaring deficiencies” in broader oversight.

In his remarks following Wainstein’s stunning revelations, UNC President Tom Ross gave the scandal a name: “The Crowder-Nyang’oro Scheme.”

The bottom line -- UNC can't rely on Crowder's current story that she was just some poor minion following orders when they already agreed long ago that she was a co-mastermind of the scam.

One other point -- even if you accept Crowder's explanation that she did it for "all the students" and not just the athletes, that almost doesn't matter. What matters is the people charged with monitoring the athletes' academic progress, and verifying the athletes' satisfaction of academic eligibility requirements, knowingly funneled their charges into sham courses to keep them eligible. That's what's so devastating about the famous "These No Longer Exist!" PowerPoint slide. It doesn't prove that the sham courses were set up specifically for athletes, but it does prove extensive knowing participation in the scam (regardless of why the scam was originally conceived) by people on the athletic side. And that IS within the NCAA's jurisdiction.

[UrinalCake]

In a number of email exchanges, she clarifies what she can and cannot do...going so far in one instance to say (paraphrasing) 'I can't do something as egregious as create a summer class just for two athletes, because we have to keep a modicum of integrity.'

I would love for the enforcement staff to take her words, juxtapose them with a robust sampling of the emails in which her "woe is me" narrative is absolutely decimated by the actions described and to which she agrees and by the instructions she gives.


Don't worry, they get into that. The email you reference is discussed on page 76 8-)

https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/Exhibits-Table-of-Contents-Exhibit-1-1.pdf

[Tom B.]

Don't worry, they get into that. The email you reference is discussed on page 76 8-)

https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/Exhibits-Table-of-Contents-Exhibit-1-1.pdf


KS: But we never put an athlete into a special section alone too many red flags. What does that mean?

DC: That means I would be given special favors to an athlete – didn’t do it.

KS: Okay. And you didn’t do it?

DC: Willingly. I think, you know, if you look far enough you might find one where Joyce told me to do it and I did it. But I, you know, when I did it, I didn’t do it.

"When I did it, I didn't do it."

If ever a single quote captured UNC's defense to this whole mess in a nutshell, that's it.

[BD80]

"When I did it, I didn't do it."

If ever a single quote captured UNC's defense to this whole mess in a nutshell, that's it.

Makes "the ceiling is the roof" somewhat more comprehensible.


Relatively speaking.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

So if they are throwing women's hoops under the bus, how can they claim at the same time that the men's team didn't benefit in the same exact ways. They would have everyone believe that any cheating was done solely for the benefit of the women's basketball program?

[Indoor66]

Makes "the ceiling is the roof" somewhat more comprehensible.


Relatively speaking.

Doesn't that depend on whether you are located in the basement?

[Henderson]

This thread feels like the 1980 Dallas episode, "Who Shot J.R.?" Question asked in the spring; reveal in the fall; much discussion in anticipation.

Just so you know, my head said Sue Ellen, but my gut told me that was too obvious. I never considered Kristin.

So my insights here would not be based on a record of success in similar circumstances.

[Reddevil]

This thread feels like the 1980 Dallas episode, "Who Shot J.R.?" Question asked in the spring; reveal in the fall; much discussion in anticipation.

Just so you know, my head said Sue Ellen, but my gut told me that was too obvious. I never considered Kristin.

So my insights here would not be based on a record of success in similar circumstances.

This is awesome. I wonder what percentage of posters understand this reference. I thought it was Cliff Barnes.

[DukieInKansas]

So if they are throwing women's hoops under the bus, how can they claim at the same time that the men's team didn't benefit in the same exact ways. They would have everyone believe that any cheating was done solely for the benefit of the women's basketball program?

Title IX at work. :-D

Will Sylvia go down without a fight?

[aimo]

This is awesome. I wonder what percentage of posters understand this reference. I thought it was Cliff Barnes.

I was only ten, but I remember thinking it was his secretary. Yes, I watched Dallas at age ten. It came on after the Dukes of Hazzard. Which came on after The Incredible Hulk.

[TruBlu]

Title IX at work. :-D

Will Sylvia go down without a fight?

If the price is right, she will go down.

(Sorry for that awful imagery)

[swood1000]

Does anyone know if Debbie Crowder has a Masters degree? If the rules for accreditation are the same at UNC as they are at Duke I believe the person "teaching" the class has to have a degree higher than the students. For example, a graduate student cannot teach a class of graduate students; the class has to be taught by someone with a PhD or who is studying for their PhD.

Crowder is described in the UNC response as "an English major and graduate of the University."

[swood1000]

And let's not forget this:


http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7435&stc=1


Seriously, why doesn't this slide alone blow their "It was strictly an academic issue, nobody on the athletic side was in on it" defense out of the water?

UNC would probably respond that this is just the opinion of the person who created it, and that doesn't establish the fact.

[swood1000]

There appears to be more slight-of-hand going on with the percentages put forward by UNC of paper classes taken by student-athletes. Wainstein had said that 47.4% of the enrollments in the lecture paper classes were student-athletes. The number that UNC came back with, 29.4%, besides using a different definition of ‘student-athlete,’ also included enrollments in independent study paper classes.

So why would Wainstein not include independent study paper classes in his figure? One reason could be that because of the way course enrollments for independent studies were handled in AFAM it was impossible to identify the number of students who were enrolled in independent study paper classes. (Based on assertions by Crowder and Nyang’oro that “most” of the independent studies offered by AFAM during that period were irregular, however, Wainstein assumed that 50% of the total AFAM independent studies enrollments were irregular, and used that figure in his calculations.)

UNC’s objection is that only 25.4% of active student-athletes enrolled in independent study classes, accounting for only 17.7% of the enrollments in these classes, so they want that lower 17.7% figure to be averaged in. The lowness of this figure is probably influenced by the fact that according to Wainstein, Coaches Holladay and Williams had a preference against independent studies and for the structure of a regular lecture class. As such, they directed Walden to encourage players to opt for lecture classes over independent studies. Maybe the athletic advisors generally followed this practice. Some reasons might be (a) because a lecture class looks less fake, (b) because of the limitation on the number of independent study classes that could be used toward graduation, and (c) because the undergraduate curriculum requirements that required students to take classes within a certain number of different curriculum areas or “Perspectives” could be not be satisfied with independent study classes.

UNC’s calculations are confusing. At one point they say that “the courses in issue” are referred to as the “Courses.” On page 6 they say that active student-athletes accounted for 37.2% of the enrollments in the Courses. Then on the next page they say “Active student-athletes accounted for 17.7% of the enrollments in the Courses that were taught as independent studies. The combined percentage of the active student-athletes that took the Courses was 29.4%.” This is how they arrive at their 29.4% figure to put up against the 47.4% figure used by Wainstein. But if student-athletes were 37.2% of enrollments in the Courses and 17.7% of the enrollments in that subset of the Courses consisting of independent study, how does it make sense to combine those percentages, and what is that supposed to represent? Anybody have any ideas? These percentages are also discussed on pages 37-38 and 75-77. The document is here (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf).

[Olympic Fan]

UNC would probably respond that this is just the opinion of the person who created it, and that doesn't establish the fact.

And that person was the football team's academic advisor ... and was presented to the football team and coaches without objection.

[swood1000]

And that person was the football team's academic advisor ... and was presented to the football team and coaches without objection.

And since the coaches didn't object or inquire into the matter one can assume that they accepted it as true. This was in November, 2009, prior to the investigation in 2011. It would seem to constitute unethical conduct to fail to disclose this to the investigators in 2011.


10.1 (a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual’s institution;

Maybe they were using Steve Martin's favorite solution to all difficulties: "I forgot."

[crimsondevil]

In their response to NOA-2, in discussing the charges against Boxill, UNC said, "The new NCAA rules adopted as NCAA Proposal 2015-66, currently in effect, substantially changed the rules that pertain to unauthorized academic assistance. Under these new rules, the enforcement staff likely would not pursue a violation in the circumstances presented here."

They can say that but it doesn't make it true. UNC's accrediting organization cited them for academic misconduct and they admitted it (in a "mistakes were made" kind of way). Plus I believe they violated their own policies with the independent study credits and pretending they were real classes.


Also, it's kind of an odd ball type of setup and might not violate the published academic policies. Or put another way, schools such as UNC will have an incentive to formulate their policies tightly, to minimize the possibility that a provision, construed broadly, could be seen to prohibit many types of things.

Agree that the setup is clunky. My thought was just that a completely parallel UNC-like case would still have violations under the new rules.

[swood1000]

There appears to be more slight-of-hand going on...

Actually, it's sleight of hand. Slight of hand is in the same category as:

Sneak peak
Deep-seeded
Shoe-in
Baited breath
Wet your appetite

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Actually, it's sleight of hand. Slight of hand is in the same category as:

Sneak peak
Deep-seeded
Shoe-in
Baited breath
Wet your appetite

Sporks for words!

[rasputin]

Actually, it's sleight of hand. Slight of hand is in the same category as:

Sneak peak
Deep-seeded
Shoe-in
Baited breath
Wet your appetite

That's a long road to hoe.

[Indoor66]

That's a long road to hoe.

Actually, a long ROW.

[mgtr]

I thought that Rasputin was being facetious.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I thought that Rasputin was being facetious.

For all intensive purposes, it's the same thing. Unless it's a whole nother thing.

[ChrisP]

For all intensive purposes, it's the same thing. Unless it's a whole nother thing.

Or it could just be a mute point :cool:

[swood1000]

For all intensive purposes, it's the same thing. Unless it's a whole nother thing.

Yes, it’s one in the same. We should just make due, unless someone is trying to extract revenge.

[rasputin]

I thought that Rasputin was being facetious.

Thank you.

[ncexnyc]

I was only ten, but I remember thinking it was his secretary. Yes, I watched Dallas at age ten. It came on after the Dukes of Hazzard. Which came on after The Incredible Hulk.
That's interesting. I remember the CBS Friday night line up being Dukes of Hazzard 8-9, Dallas 9-10, and Falcon Crest 10-11.

[devildeac]

Would their response be best characterized by brevity re-posting his c*rolina "letters" photos/attachments, U and F, with his accompanying comment? ;)

[JetpackJesus]

Yes, it’s one in the same. We should just make due, unless someone is trying to extract revenge.

I could care less about any of this.

[OldPhiKap]

Would their response be best characterized by brevity re-posting his c*rolina "letters" photos/attachments, U and F, with his accompanying comment? ;)

I dare say, any response by brevity likely falls in the realm of "best" response. To paraphrase one of the great one-hit wonder albums of my youth, he's got the knack.

[Reilly]

... I thought it was Cliff Barnes.

You know what's weird? Cliff Barnes of "Dallas" looks like a combination of Clemson coaches Cliff Ellis and Rick Barnes.

[Channing]

If the price is right, she will go down.

(Sorry for that awful imagery)

Like this guy ... http://brobible.com/entertainment/article/plinko-world-record-price-is-right/ ?

[JetpackJesus]

Like this guy ... http://brobible.com/entertainment/article/plinko-world-record-price-is-right/ ?

That's probably how I'm going to react for each banner the COI makes the cheats take down.

[moonpie23]

That's probably how I'm going to react for each banner the COI makes the cheats take down.

i'll be on the 11pm news........


can you do a kick starter for bail money?

[Tom B.]

Or it could just be a mute point :cool:

You mean a moo point. It's like a cow's opinion -- it just doesn't matter. It's moo.

[Atlanta Duke]

While the brazen misconduct is clear and the N&O has led the charge in covering the story, UNC has been faring better with the national sports media.

In addition to ESPN's lack of interest in going after UNC, this column in SI.com speaks favorably of the latest effort by UNC to avoid sanctions

UNC has mounted a compelling response to NCAA notice of allegations

This may sound crazy given the depth and the scope of the academic fraud that North Carolina officials have already admitted took place, but the school's response to NCAA’s third notice of allegations suggests (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf) that North Carolina’s attorneys have mounted a compelling defense in this case. ...

The Wainstein Report and common sense suggest that athletes were shuttled into these easy classes to keep them eligible, but according to the bylaws involved here, the NCAA enforcement staff must prove either a conspiracy by North Carolina employees to offer fraudulent credit specifically for athletes or a scheme that allowed athletes to receive benefits other students didn’t get. The enforcement staff can’t prove the second because it isn’t true, so it will have to focus on the first. ... https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/25/unc-north-carolina-ncaa-notice-allegations-noa-tar-heels-academic-fraud

[MarkD83]

SI.com comments....
UNC has mounted a compelling response to NCAA notice of allegations

This may sound crazy given the depth and the scope of the academic fraud that North Carolina officials have already admitted took place, but the school's response to NCAA’s third notice of allegations suggests (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf) that North Carolina’s attorneys have mounted a compelling defense in this case. ...

The Wainstein Report and common sense suggest that athletes were shuttled into these easy classes to keep them eligible, but according to the bylaws involved here, the NCAA enforcement staff must prove either a conspiracy by North Carolina employees to offer fraudulent credit specifically for athletes or a scheme that allowed athletes to receive benefits other students didn’t get. The enforcement staff can’t prove the second because it isn’t true, so it will have to focus on the first. ... https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/25/unc-north-carolina-ncaa-notice-allegations-noa-tar-heels-academic-fraud

As a preamble...Atlanta Duke this is not a response to your post but to the SI.com comments....

The UNC lawyers are actually making progress based on the SI response and everyone is buying into the BS....

We keep looking at bylaws and sub-points in bylaws and suggesting that the NCAA has to prove a case in a court of law.

The COI has a list of allegations and if UNC had NEVER responded then all of the allegations would be considered violations and penalties handed out accordingly. UNC has to show that the allegations are NOT true rather than the other way around. The COI in August is going to hand out a penalty not hear a case about guilt or innocence.

In addition, if the penalty is too severe then UNC can appeal but the damage is already done and again UNC has to show that the penalties are too severe.

I know that we think that UNC is being very clever with all of their wording in their responses, but give the NCAA some credit as well. Everytime UNC has wanted an extension even for the most trivial issues, the NCAA has given the extension. So it will be hard to argue that the NCAA violated any major procedures.

In addition, in the past 3-5 years when the NCAA has handed out penalties to other universities the penalties have been properly assigned such that other universities might have grumbled about how unfair they were but have accepted the penalties. If you then do the math (as many on this board have done), upgrading previous penalties would put UNC in a world of hurt and the scaling of penalties would not be unfair given the recent penalties that have been accepted.

The only exception is what happened to Penn State which was clearly outside of NCAA jurisdiction. Even in that case Joe Paterno's wins are still not reinstated.

So UNC is fighting the only battle they can win in the court of public opinion.

[Papa John]

While the brazen misconduct is clear and the N&O has led the charge in covering the story, UNC has been faring better with the national sports media.

In addition to ESPN's lack of interest in going after UNC, this column in SI.com speaks favorably of the latest effort by UNC to avoid sanctions

UNC has mounted a compelling response to NCAA notice of allegations

This may sound crazy given the depth and the scope of the academic fraud that North Carolina officials have already admitted took place, but the school's response to NCAA’s third notice of allegations suggests (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf) that North Carolina’s attorneys have mounted a compelling defense in this case. ...

The Wainstein Report and common sense suggest that athletes were shuttled into these easy classes to keep them eligible, but according to the bylaws involved here, the NCAA enforcement staff must prove either a conspiracy by North Carolina employees to offer fraudulent credit specifically for athletes or a scheme that allowed athletes to receive benefits other students didn’t get. The enforcement staff can’t prove the second because it isn’t true, so it will have to focus on the first. ... https://www.si.com/college-football/2017/05/25/unc-north-carolina-ncaa-notice-allegations-noa-tar-heels-academic-fraud

That's because they're only jumping in and out of coverage of the issue, thus they don't have a comprehensive understanding of all of the underlying information. This statement, in particular, is absolutely ridiculous given what we know from the Wainstein report and its attachments/exhibits: The enforcement staff can’t prove the second because it isn’t true, so it will have to focus on the first.

First of all, to suggest the second [i.e., extra benefits] "isn't true" is basically to admit that you haven't really read the Wainstein report at all—it's actually, in my opinion, the easier of the two to prove based on material evidence [in the form of numerous back-and-forth emails] contained within the Wainstein report. I think the first [i.e., widespread academic conspiracy] is far more difficult to prove, but is also completely unnecessary, as the FSU and Syracuse cases (and, tangentially, the Louisville/Pitino situation) demonstrate.

This SI piece is basically the same as what Bilas does on this topic—weighing in with opinions without doing a deep dive into the information available on the topic. It's normally unwise to do so (though we all tend to do it on a variety of topics), but it's akin to malpractice for a journalist to do so. If you're going to have an opinion, you darn well better research the topic extensively. What the N&O and their reporters have decided to do is what a journalist should do—sink your teeth into the story and don't let go; shine a light on every document, every source, every avenue of information available and let the story tell itself. This is what Pulitzer prizes are awarded for, because it's a mark of good journalism.

[DashNative]

As a preamble...Atlanta Duke this is not a response to your post but to the SI.com comments...

The UNC lawyers are actually making progress based on the SI response and everyone is buying into the BS...

We keep looking at bylaws and sub-points in bylaws and suggesting that the NCAA has to prove a case in a court of law.

The COI has a list of allegations and if UNC had NEVER responded then all of the allegations would be considered violations and penalties handed out accordingly. UNC has to show that the allegations are NOT true rather than the other way around. The COI in August is going to hand out a penalty not hear a case about guilt or innocence.

In addition, if the penalty is too severe then UNC can appeal but the damage is already done and again UNC has to show that the penalties are too severe.

I know that we think that UNC is being very clever with all of their wording in their responses, but give the NCAA some credit as well. Everytime UNC has wanted an extension even for the most trivial issues, the NCAA has given the extension. So it will be hard to argue that the NCAA violated any major procedures.

In addition, in the past 3-5 years when the NCAA has handed out penalties to other universities the penalties have been properly assigned such that other universities might have grumbled about how unfair they were but have accepted the penalties. If you then do the math (as many on this board have done), upgrading previous penalties would put UNC in a world of hurt and the scaling of penalties would not be unfair given the recent penalties that have been accepted.

The only exception is what happened to Penn State which was clearly outside of NCAA jurisdiction. Even in that case Joe Paterno's wins are still not reinstated.

So UNC is fighting the only battle they can win in the court of public opinion.

Parachuting in from the daily lurker section. I thought Paterno did get his wins back eventually?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored

[OldPhiKap]

Parachuting in from the daily lurker section. I thought Paterno did get his wins back eventually?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored

I think he did, although there is a difference between UNC (cheating directly linked to keeping players eligible through fraudulent means) and PSU (indefensible wrongdoing that was remote from performance on the field).

But yes, I think you are correct.

I think the better analogy is FSU, where a single class (IIRC) led to Bobby Bowden vacating wins.

[devildeac]

I think he did, although there is a difference between UNC (cheating directly linked to keeping players eligible through fraudulent means) and PSU (indefensible wrongdoing that was remote from performance on the field).

But yes, I think you are correct.

I think the better analogy is FSU, where a single class (IIRC) led to Bobby Bowden vacating wins.

That appears to be the case:


http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=4895204

"The sanctions stemmed from a cheating scandal involving an online music course."

No other courses are mentioned in that article.

[devildeac]

I think he did, although there is a difference between UNC (cheating directly linked to keeping players eligible through fraudulent means) and PSU (indefensible wrongdoing that was remote from performance on the field).

But yes, I think you are correct.

I think the better analogy is FSU, where a single class (IIRC) led to Bobby Bowden vacating wins.


That appears to be the case:


http://www.espn.com/college-sports/news/story?id=4895204

"The sanctions stemmed from a cheating scandal involving an online music course."

No other courses are mentioned in that article.

Here's the University of Minnesota story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Minnesota_basketball_scandal

[DashNative]

I think he did, although there is a difference between UNC (cheating directly linked to keeping players eligible through fraudulent means) and PSU (indefensible wrongdoing that was remote from performance on the field).

But yes, I think you are correct.

I think the better analogy is FSU, where a single class (IIRC) led to Bobby Bowden vacating wins.

Oh, I'm not drawing an analogy, at least not intentionally. I was just wondering if I had missed some final ruling about Paterno's career. I don't lurk on any PSU fan sites!

I do think it is interesting that FSU didn't really fight the NCAA on that. Neither did Syracuse I don't think. Penn State and UNC have both shown that there is no amount of money that they won't spend to land at a more acceptable (to them) spot. PSU ended up spending over 60 mil when you factor in the payments to the designated charity while UNC is at 18 and rising fast. If they knew then what they know now, do you think FSU would have put up more of a fight?

[OldPhiKap]

Here's the University of Minnesota story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Minnesota_basketball_scandal


Oh, I'm not drawing an analogy, at least not intentionally. I was just wondering if I had missed some final ruling about Paterno's career. I don't lurk on any PSU fan sites!

I do think it is interesting that FSU didn't really fight the NCAA on that. Neither did Syracuse I don't think. Penn State and UNC have both shown that there is no amount of money that they won't spend to land at a more acceptable (to them) spot. PSU ended up spending over 60 mil when you factor in the payments to the designated charity while UNC is at 18 and rising fast. If they knew then what they know now, do you think FSU would have put up more of a fight?

UGa with Jim Harrick also comes to mind.

I have a friend who was on the Clemson golf team. He talks about a class he had with a bunch of athletes, including William "the refrigerator" Perry. The day before a big exam they went over a "practice" exam in class. At the end of class the professor stressed that "you may want to study these questions and answers for tomorrow. YOU MAY SEE THESE QUESTIONS AGAIN." The next day, of course, the exam questions were exactly the same.

The next week, the professor passed back the graded exams. My friend, of course, got every question right. The Fridge sat right behind him, and exclaimed "Damn. I got a D!"

Swears it's a true story.

[MarkD83]

Parachuting in from the daily lurker section. I thought Paterno did get his wins back eventually?

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/12179571/joe-paterno-111-wins-were-vacated-restored

My bad...I should have looked this up.

[Tom B.]

So, about that "classes were open and available to all students" defense...

Crowder says the classes weren't published. Students could only sign up if they learned about them by word of mouth or from an advisor.

(Hat tip to Ted Tatos.)

https://twitter.com/TedTatos/status/868830149910740992


7447

[swood1000]

So, about that "classes were open and available to all students" defense...

Crowder says the classes weren't published. Students could only sign up if they learned about them by word of mouth or from an advisor.

(Hat tip to Ted Tatos.)

https://twitter.com/TedTatos/status/868830149910740992


http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7447&stc=1

I assume she means that all classes being offered were listed but it wasn't disclosed which ones had the special 'paper class' characteristics. For example, there would always be a listing for Independent Study, but only the insiders would know that a special kind of Independent Study was available.

However that’s the same as not being listed since knowing and taking advantage of their true nature required inside information not publically available. Simply listing an independent study without any way for non-athletes to know that it is available as a paper class, rather than as a legitimate independent study, does not make it generally available. It is similar to the 2015 Wichita State case where extra benefits were found when discounts were available to all but only the athletes were told about them.

It is true that academic counselors for non-athletes (“Steele Building counselors”) also put students into paper classes. However, while that made the classes available to those students it did not make them “generally available” if they were not accurately described in the course listings.

The 1995 U. of Miami case dealt with 77 athletes and 6 non-athletes and held that the assistance was not “generally available” because it was not provided to non-athletes on the same scale. In the current case, according to Wainstein, “In percentage terms, that means that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes and 24.5% were football or basketball players. By comparison, approximately 4% of the Chapel Hill student body are student-athletes in any given year, and approximately 0.6% are football players.” This shows that the paper classes were not available to non-athletes on the same scale.

However, for wins to be vacated the enforcement staff is going to have to do more than show statistically that student-athletes in general were steered to these classes. In order to vacate a game in which athlete A played, they are going to need to show that athlete A didn’t just arrive in class X by chance, but because he was steered by the athletic advisors or by another athlete who was steered by an athletic advisor.

[Indoor66]

However, for wins to be vacated the enforcement staff is going to have to do more than show statistically that student-athletes in general were steered to these classes. In order to vacate a game in which athlete A played, they are going to need to show that athlete A didn’t just arrive in class X by chance, but because he was steered by the athletic advisors or by another athlete who was steered by an athletic advisor.

Would they not also reach the vacate situation if the situation was that but for the class x, the athlete would have been academically ineligible?

[swood1000]

Would they not also reach the vacate situation if the situation was that but for the class x, the athlete would have been academically ineligible?

As I understand their approach insofar as vacated wins are concerned, the enforcement staff is going with the activities of the athletic counselors as extra benefits, which render the athlete immediately ineligible until he is formally reinstated.


16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violation. [A] A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received.

I don’t see anything in Allegation 1 or anywhere else in NOA-3 (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2016/12/NCAA-third-notice-of-allegations.pdf) charging that any athletes would have been academically ineligible without these classes. Of course that doesn’t prevent the COI from determining that that is what happened.


19.7.7.4 Scope of Inquiry. When an institution and/or involved individual appears before a hearing panel to discuss a response to the notice of allegations, the hearing shall be directed toward the general scope of the notice of allegations but shall not preclude the panel from concluding that any violation occurred based on information developed or discussed during the hearing. In any case, the panel may make specific factual findings based on information presented by the parties or at a hearing even if different from the notice of allegations.

But the enforcement staff will not be presenting evidence toward that goal and I don’t expect it to come into play. Essentially they are not arguing that the classes should not be good for academic credit, but that they were easier and the athletes got preferential access to them.

[swood1000]

Some of the difficulty people are having with this has to do with distinguishing between (a) these paper classes, (b) more conventional forms of academic fraud such as where the students are given the answer key before the exam, and (c) classes taught by a legitimate instructor but which have minimal requirements and everyone gets an A.

UNC is arguing that these classes were a species of type (c) and that the NCAA has no authority to determine whether the academic content of a class has fallen too low. The enforcement staff would like to argue that the classes were of type (b) but to do so they would have to demonstrate that the academic content was zero and the testimony of Crowder is that the academic content was significant. To prove otherwise they need to see the actual papers and most of those are gone. This also would involve them in the business of evaluating academic content.

So it seems like the enforcement staff is going with this as a type (c) class but to which the athletes were given greater access. Instead of showing that the academic content was wanting (which perhaps they are not qualified to do) they are substituting all the information they have about how irregular the classes were. For example UNC did acknowledge (forced upon them by SACS, their accrediting body) that for those not yet graduated these classes could not be used toward the minimum requirements necessary to graduate unless the student presented some proof that the particular class was legitimate. Then there are additional facts, such as that the classes were not taught by a qualified faculty member, the admitted fact that they were designed to help athletes and others to keep their grades up, etc. It does not seem to be a stretch to say that this would be a legitimate substitute for a proof that the academic content was weak (which probably would be outside the NCAA’s expertise and legitimate scope).

UNC will still scream that any determination, no matter what the method, that a particular class was of diminished academic rigor, is outside the scope of the NCAA’s authority. But maybe we’ll end up with the Carolina Rule: it does not have to be proven that a class is substandard if the institution has admitted the fact (even if at the urging of their accrediting body). That in itself would not be an NCAA violation. It would also have to be shown that athletes were given preferential access.

[UrinalCake]

So, about that "classes were open and available to all students" defense...

Crowder says the classes weren't published. Students could only sign up if they learned about them by word of mouth or from an advisor.

(Hat tip to Ted Tatos.)


Later in that conversation Crowder is discussing how she wanted to help students, so whenever they needed help to graduate she would enroll them in the fake classes. She goes to great length to point that she did the same for athletes and non-athletes alike - it could be an athlete that has time constraints due to practice, or it could be a single mom who doesn't have childcare in the afternoons. However, when questioned about whether she ever verified whether the claims of needing help are actually true, she says that when the requests came from the athletic advisors she didn't check if the claims were true, she simply believed the advisors.

I read most of the transcript of Crowder's interview. It seems to me that she was prepped heavily for this interview by UNC's lawyers by being told to point out ad nauseum that whatever she did for athletes, she did for non-athletes as well. Early in the interview she brings this up without even being asked, and she says it all the time. However, as the interview wears on she appears to lose focus and lets slip some of the special treatment that athletes got. She says that i tused to be that in order to enroll in some of these "special" classes you used to have to stand in a physical line in her office. When asked whether she ever knew if the students requesting enrollment were athletes, she states that officially she was never told but admitted that realistically she could tell who the football and basketball players were by their physical appearance. She describes requests coming in from advisors and claims to make no distinction between requests from athletics advisors versus regular academic advisors. However she also says that there were so many requests from athletics advisors and the students couldn't physically fit in her office, so she eventually she had the athletics department email her a list of all the students to add rather than having them show up in person. She also explains that even if there was a wait list for the class, once the semester started any requests coming from the advisors would automatically jump the wait list and those students would be immediately added to the class.

Despite her painstaking attempts to paint this narrative that she had no clue what was going on because she treated everyone the same, you can read between the lines and see how the athletics advising department was running this scam.

[PackMan97]

Some of the difficulty people are having with this has to do with distinguishing between (a) these paper classes, (b) more conventional forms of academic fraud such as where the students are given the answer key before the exam, and (c) classes taught by a legitimate instructor but which have minimal requirements and everyone gets an A.

UNC is arguing that these classes were a species of type (c) and that the NCAA has no authority to determine whether the academic content of a class has fallen too low. The enforcement staff would like to argue that the classes were of type (b) but to do so they would have to demonstrate that the academic content was zero and the testimony of Crowder is that the academic content was significant. To prove otherwise they need to see the actual papers and most of those are gone. This also would involve them in the business of evaluating academic content.

So it seems like the enforcement staff is going with this as a type (c) class but to which the athletes were given greater access. Instead of showing that the academic content was wanting (which perhaps they are not qualified to do) they are substituting all the information they have about how irregular the classes were. For example UNC did acknowledge (forced upon them by SACS, their accrediting body) that for those not yet graduated these classes could not be used toward the minimum requirements necessary to graduate unless the student presented some proof that the particular class was legitimate. Then there are additional facts, such as that the classes were not taught by a qualified faculty member, the admitted fact that they were designed to help athletes and others to keep their grades up, etc. It does not seem to be a stretch to say that this would be a legitimate substitute for a proof that the academic content was weak (which probably would be outside the NCAA’s expertise and legitimate scope).

UNC will still scream that any determination, no matter what the method, that a particular class was of diminished academic rigor, is outside the scope of the NCAA’s authority. But maybe we’ll end up with the Carolina Rule: it does not have to be proven that a class is substandard if the institution has admitted the fact (even if at the urging of their accrediting body). That in itself would not be an NCAA violation. It would also have to be shown that athletes were given preferential access.

The only people having difficulty are UNC and their shills

[swood1000]

...I read most of the transcript of Crowder's interview. It seems to me that she was prepped heavily for this interview by UNC's lawyers by being told to point out ad nauseum that whatever she did for athletes, she did for non-athletes as well. ...

Crowder was also limited by the contents of her interview with Wainstein (the one that UNC has been trying to get excluded, and which has not been released). That one was given under penalty of being charged with a felony if she was caught in a lie. No doubt the coaching by UNC for this interview had to take that first interview into consideration so as to avoid contradictions. They may also have coached her before that one, but evidently they weren't happy with the result. We can probably count on the enforcement staff in their reply to point out any discrepancies.

[swood1000]

The only people having difficulty are UNC and their shills

I don't know. You seem to be implying that only UNC and their shills would fail to see this as unequivocal academic fraud. However this runs into the problem that the enforcement staff didn't charge academic fraud so that theory requires the assumption that the enforcement staff is incompetent or corrupt. I think it's more likely that other constraints are involved, such as the difficulty of proving that an easy class fell below the line declared by the NCAA to be the minimum academic standard, and so was fraudulent, and whether the NCAA even is competent to make such a judgment.

[OldPhiKap]

I don't know. You seem to be implying that only UNC and their shills would fail to see this as unequivocal academic fraud. However this runs into the problem that the enforcement staff didn't charge academic fraud so that theory requires the assumption that the enforcement staff is incompetent or corrupt. I think it's more likely that other constraints are involved, such as the difficulty of proving that an easy class fell below the line declared by the NCAA to be the minimum academic standard, and so was fraudulent, and whether the NCAA even is competent to make such a judgment.

The other factor -- and it pains me to say this -- is that UNC appears to be outlawyering the NCAA. Bigly.

When I first started trying cases over a quarter of a century ago, a wise seasoned lawyer counselled me to always build error into a case. In other words, have a good issue to bring up on appeal if the verdict goes south. UNC is mounting a very vigorous backfight for the appeal (in this case, a challenge on the record that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the NCAA and therefore any penalty is ultra vires, arbitrary, and capricious).

When you know you're dead on the facts, build a legal defense for the appeal.

[swood1000]

The other factor -- and it pains me to say this -- is that UNC appears to be outlawyering the NCAA. Bigly.

When I first started trying cases over a quarter of a century ago, a wise seasoned lawyer counselled me to always build error into a case. In other words, have a good issue to bring up on appeal if the verdict goes south. UNC is mounting a very vigorous backfight for the appeal (in this case, a challenge on the record that this is beyond the jurisdiction of the NCAA and therefore any penalty is ultra vires, arbitrary, and capricious).

When you know you're dead on the facts, build a legal defense for the appeal.

I'm willing to agree that the NCAA is being outlawyered, which is often the case when a wealthy defendant is charged with a crime. But I'm not sure that we can ascribe their failure to charge outright academic fraud, or their failure to declare the paper classes to be null and void, to their incompetence. As Jay Bilas likes to say, everybody knows that there are plenty of classes out there that are just as easy as these paper classes were. Where exactly is the academic fraud line to be drawn? The NCAA is saying that it doesn't care how easy the class is, as long as athletes don’t get preferential access. I'm not sure that any other approach could have worked.

[swood1000]

There appears to be more slight-of-hand going on with the percentages put forward by UNC of paper classes taken by student-athletes. Wainstein had said that 47.4% of the enrollments in the lecture paper classes were student-athletes. The number that UNC came back with, 29.4%, besides using a different definition of ‘student-athlete,’ also included enrollments in independent study paper classes.

So why would Wainstein not include independent study paper classes in his figure? One reason could be that because of the way course enrollments for independent studies were handled in AFAM it was impossible to identify the number of students who were enrolled in independent study paper classes. (Based on assertions by Crowder and Nyang’oro that “most” of the independent studies offered by AFAM during that period were irregular, however, Wainstein assumed that 50% of the total AFAM independent studies enrollments were irregular, and used that figure in his calculations.)

UNC’s objection is that only 25.4% of active student-athletes enrolled in independent study classes, accounting for only 17.7% of the enrollments in these classes, so they want that lower 17.7% figure to be averaged in. The lowness of this figure is probably influenced by the fact that according to Wainstein, Coaches Holladay and Williams had a preference against independent studies and for the structure of a regular lecture class. As such, they directed Walden to encourage players to opt for lecture classes over independent studies. Maybe the athletic advisors generally followed this practice. Some reasons might be (a) because a lecture class looks less fake, (b) because of the limitation on the number of independent study classes that could be used toward graduation, and (c) because the undergraduate curriculum requirements that required students to take classes within a certain number of different curriculum areas or “Perspectives” could be not be satisfied with independent study classes.

UNC’s calculations are confusing. At one point they say that “the courses in issue” are referred to as the “Courses.” On page 6 they say that active student-athletes accounted for 37.2% of the enrollments in the Courses. Then on the next page they say “Active student-athletes accounted for 17.7% of the enrollments in the Courses that were taught as independent studies. The combined percentage of the active student-athletes that took the Courses was 29.4%.” This is how they arrive at their 29.4% figure to put up against the 47.4% figure used by Wainstein. But if student-athletes were 37.2% of enrollments in the Courses and 17.7% of the enrollments in that subset of the Courses consisting of independent study, how does it make sense to combine those percentages, and what is that supposed to represent? Anybody have any ideas? These percentages are also discussed on pages 37-38 and 75-77. The document is here (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf).

I'm still trying to make sense of UNC's numbers. UNC objects to this statement by Wainstein:
 
"Between 1999, when the first lecture paper class was offered, and Crowder's retirement in 2009, a total of 186 lecture paper classes were offered with a total of 3,906 undergraduate enrollments in those classes. 1,852 (47.4%) of those enrollments were student-athletes."

UNC's argument is that the 47.4% only refers to lecture paper classes and that if you include independent study paper classes the number goes down. But Wainstein also made the following statement:
 
"We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses. Accordingly, unlike Governor Martin, we found that student-athletes were far more represented in paper classes than they were in other courses offered by the department."

This talks about all irregular classes, not just lecture, and doesn't limit it to any particular years. So by attacking the 47.4% figure perhaps UNC is hoping that we will assume that the 48% figure is gone too. Or maybe the 47.4% and the 48% are the same figure, and Wainstein was just being imprecise.

[smvalkyries]

I remember a time when the ACC as a conference dealt with issues like academic fraud- Have we fallen so far that the ACC is impotent to act when the NCAA can't or won't or for whatever reason doesn't?
Has has our collective academic credibility fallen so low that we as a conference no longer care?
I wonder does anyone still thing the NCAA threat of someday sanctions is still adversely affecting Carolina recruiting ( probably some but the effect is waning?) Isn't it time we started looking outside the box for alternative solutions? I mean more concrete solutions than just losing respect for UNC-CH (eat) and no longer finding them worthy as rivals.

[swood1000]

I remember a time when the ACC as a conference dealt with issues like academic fraud- Have we fallen so far that the ACC is impotent to act when the NCAA can't or won't or for whatever reason doesn't?
Has has our collective academic credibility fallen so low that we as a conference no longer care?

UNC claims that the ACC supports its view that the actions of the ASPSA athletic academic counselors were permitted by NCAA Bylaws. It included the ACC interpretation as Exhibit 1-4 in its first bundle of exhibits (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/Exhibits-Table-of-Contents-Exhibit-1-1.pdf).

One question they did not ask the ACC was whether it is permissible for the athletic counselors to lead student-athletes to avail themselves of anomalous courses, not listed as such, at a rate disproportionately higher than the general student body, and whether this constituted a benefit not generally available to other students.

[PackMan97]

UNC claims that the ACC supports its view that the actions of the ASPSA athletic academic counselors were permitted by NCAA Bylaws. It included the ACC interpretation as Exhibit 1-4 in its first bundle of exhibits (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/Exhibits-Table-of-Contents-Exhibit-1-1.pdf).

Carolina asked John Swofford, the man under which all this malfeasance started, if everything was A. OK....and he said, "It's okay"! I am shocked. Absofrackinglutely shcoked! So shocke,d I can't spell or type correctl!

I'm also shokced that Swofford, former UNC athletic director, has supported UNC at every turn, above and beyond what he's done for any other ACC school.


I don't know. You seem to be implying that only UNC and their shills would fail to see this as unequivocal academic fraud. However this runs into the problem that the enforcement staff didn't charge academic fraud so that theory requires the assumption that the enforcement staff is incompetent or corrupt. I think it's more likely that other constraints are involved, such as the difficulty of proving that an easy class fell below the line declared by the NCAA to be the minimum academic standard, and so was fraudulent, and whether the NCAA even is competent to make such a judgment.

I was wrong, you guys see the unequivocal fraud, you just refuse to call it that. That is the heart of the difficulty facing a voluntary organizaiton like the NCAA. They rely on schools to self report incidents like this. When many players across different sports are discovered driving nice rental cars they didn't pay for, the NCAA expects the school to self report. When parking tickets are paid by a third party, or athletes are allowed to register with outstanding tickets (against university rules) schools are expected to self report. When the Athletic Department and an Academic Department conspire over the course of three decades to devlop and maintain a Potemkin Degree Program in order to keep students eligible, the NCAA expects schools to report it.

In this case, UNC has shown they have no honor, integrity or adults in charge. They refuse to call it academic fraud because they know what that means to "their precious". So this isn't a case of NCAA corruption or ineptness, it's a case of Carolina lack of honor and integrity. It is an example of the total corruption of a University which has become sports first and academics second. It is a display of what is wrong with this world.

[MarkD83]

The enforcement staff would like to argue that the classes were of type (b) but to do so they would have to demonstrate that the academic content was zero and the testimony of Crowder is that the academic content was significant.

However, Crowder is not a faculty member and therefore does not have the authority to determine what is or is not significant academic content.

[swood1000]

I was wrong, you guys see the unequivocal fraud, you just refuse to call it that. That is the heart of the difficulty facing a voluntary organizaiton like the NCAA. They rely on schools to self report incidents like this.

We can probably all agree that every university, probably without exception, has available classes for which little or no work is required (even less than was required for the UNC paper classes) and which guarantee a high grade. Universities do not want the NCAA evaluating rigor or academic legitimacy of their classes, which means that the system has unequivocal fraud built into it. The fraud of the UNC paper classes greatly exceeded the standard amount of fraud. Instead of isolated classes here and there, it was a concentrated fraud factory.

How would you frame the rule that captures the paper classes but not the isolated instances of classes having no rigor? The rule cannot put the NCAA into the position of having to evaluate the academic content of classes that did have some content (they had to submit a paper that included appropriate citations and a proper bibliography, and that met the page-length requirements). You could draw the line at classes that are not taught by a faculty member but what about classes taught by grad students or adjuncts? There are many legitimate instances of exams being graded by higher-level students at the direction of the professor. How do you differentiate those situations from one in which the department head assigns his assistant, a college grad, to grade independent study papers?

In this case the NCAA has skipped trying to formulate that rule, and has instead said that it has no problem with low/no content classes as long as athletes are not given preferential access to them. How do you think the NCAA should have proceeded?

[swood1000]

However, Crowder is not a faculty member and therefore does not have the authority to determine what is or is not significant academic content.

Neither does the NCAA have the authority to determine what is or is not sufficient academic content.

[swood1000]

The University of Georgia Public Infractions Report (2004) (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=102223) talked about the problem the NCAA has when faced with evaluating the academic content of a class:


"It should also go without saying that if an instructor awards grades in a class when he has no basis on which to assess performance that too is academic misconduct. The committee does not disagree that within the purview of academic freedom is the choice not to require attendance, to grade on activities rather than written work, not to administer a final examination, to employ a lenient grading policy, or even to provide all students with an “A” because performance will be evaluated on minimum standards that all students will meet. The committee notes, however, that academic freedom is not academic license, and that an instructor who makes all these choices in combination at the very least creates the specter of academic misconduct."

[MarkD83]

Neither does the NCAA have the authority to determine what is or is not sufficient academic content.

The NCAA did not make that decision either...UNC made that decision in the W'stein report. This is the report they are now trying to disavow.

This is where the circular argument that UNC is trying to make should end. Just like other schools they have admitted to the fraud in the W'stein report so the NCAA just accepts that and starts looking at transcripts and they have all of the transcripts. After the penalties are handed out UNC can make their case about whether the penalties are an issue.

Even now UNC is trying to redefine the number of students and student athletes in these classes in order to reduce the damage. If they really wanted to disavow the classes they would not care how many athletes were in the classes, they would just say they were legitimate and be done with it. So, UNC even now tacitly admits the classes are frauds.

If they had directed athletes to differential equations, organic chemistry, macroeconomics, (name your difficult class in your major) no one would be arguing about the number of students in the classes. Instead athletes were directed to classes that were "arranged" and graded by someone NOT on the UNC faculty by UNC's own admission and this was just confirmed by the person who was arranging and grading the classes. Once again UNC has shot themselves in the foot, this time by letting Crowder talk.

[swood1000]

The NCAA did not make that decision either...UNC made that decision in the W'stein report. This is the report they are now trying to disavow.

This is where the circular argument that UNC is trying to make should end. Just like other schools they have admitted to the fraud in the W'stein report

I agree that with a shower of crocodile tears they made general statements about how there had been transgressions. But I am not aware of any such statements that can be used to attach specific infractions to specific student-athletes, and that’s what we need to vacate wins.

The only concession of theirs I am aware of that can be used to make headway against them was when they agreed that the paper classes would not be good toward graduation for those not yet graduated. This should play a big part in their undoing.


…so the NCAA just accepts that and starts looking at transcripts and they have all of the transcripts.

The enforcement staff is not approaching this as academic fraud so looking at transcripts will be limited to determining which athletes attended paper classes as a result of having been steered by the advisors. If you think it should have been approached as academic fraud what is your answer to the question I asked PackMan97? How would you frame the rule?

[PackMan97]

We can probably all agree that every university, probably without exception, has available classes for which little or no work is required (even less than was required for the UNC paper classes) and which guarantee a high grade. Universities do not want the NCAA evaluating rigor or academic legitimacy of their classes, which means that the system has unequivocal fraud built into it. The fraud of the UNC paper classes greatly exceeded the standard amount of fraud. Instead of isolated classes here and there, it was a concentrated fraud factory.

No we can not agree that without exception every university has class that are less rigourous than the UNC powerpoint below. Keep in mind, we have proof that the paper used was often massively plagerized, recycled, already used for a different class, not on topic for the class and in general something that would get you academically suspended at a real school (Duke or State).

https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/2015/06/04/unc-screenshot.jpg

Everyone school does have easy A's that anyone who graduated high school should have no problem passing. I can agree with that. I took one of them at State with half the women's basketball team. Drama 100 - Intro to Drama. I'm pretty sure everyone made an A in that class. But you know what? Those girls showed up every class. They memorized the short plays they were assigned and gave them to the class. They took the short quizes. They got their A without likely having to do more than prepare 10 minutes before class. Every school has those.

The difference is you can't make progress toward a degree taking all the easy As. You can't fill up four years worth of course work. If you are functionally illiterate, you won't pass them. At UNC, they took classes that required nothing and turned it into a diploma.


How would you frame the rule that captures the paper classes but not the isolated instances of classes having no rigor? The rule cannot put the NCAA into the position of having to evaluate the academic content of classes that did have some content (they had to submit a paper that included appropriate citations and a proper bibliography, and that met the page-length requirements). You could draw the line at classes that are not taught by a faculty member but what about classes taught by grad students or adjuncts? There are many legitimate instances of exams being graded by higher-level students at the direction of the professor. How do you differentiate those situations from one in which the department head assigns his assistant, a college grad, to grade independent study papers?

In this case the NCAA has skipped trying to formulate that rule, and has instead said that it has no problem with low/no content classes as long as athletes are not given preferential access to them. How do you think the NCAA should have proceeded?

SACS made UNC the FIRST Research I University to be put on probation for academic fraud. The NCAA doesn't have to make that determination, SACS already did it for them. As to why the NCAA isn't leaning on that report and the Wainstein report and calling a spade a spade, is most likely because they are still trying to punish UNC for what UNC self reported.

In general, classes taught by graduate students and others are designed that way. Their name is on the sylabus. Students know about it when signing up for the class. Full faculty oversea the graduate students teaching etc. The problem is that you want to find a way out so you can keep your "precious". You'll warp you mind to justify the means, because you want the ends (those precious basketball wins).

[swood1000]

Everyone school does have easy A's that anyone who graduated high school should have no problem passing. I can agree with that.

That’s all I’m saying. Every school, including Duke and State, has professors who are willing to let somebody do an easy independent study and who are prepared to grade extremely leniently. There is no substantive difference between those classes and the UNC paper classes. Furthermore, any class in which a person can get an A and only have to prepare 10 minutes before class is not a college level class. (I took one or two of them myself.)


The difference is you can't make progress toward a degree taking all the easy As. You can't fill up four years worth of course work.

So the rule is that a few here and there are just easy classes but too many of them become academic fraud? Is that rule coherent or workable?


SACS made UNC the FIRST Research I University to be put on probation for academic fraud. The NCAA doesn't have to make that determination, SACS already did it for them. As to why the NCAA isn't leaning on that report and the Wainstein report and calling a spade a spade, is most likely because they are still trying to punish UNC for what UNC self reported.

I’m not sure I follow this. Why do you think that the enforcement staff didn’t charge academic fraud?


In general, classes taught by graduate students and others are designed that way. Their name is on the sylabus. Students know about it when signing up for the class. Full faculty oversea the graduate students teaching etc. The problem is that you want to find a way out so you can keep your "precious". You'll warp you mind to justify the means, because you want the ends (those precious basketball wins).

So please state your rule, which will distinguish between the UNC paper classes and the equally easy classes available at every university.

[PackMan97]

That’s all I’m saying. Every school, including Duke and State, has professors who are willing to let somebody do an easy independent study and who are prepared to grade extremely leniently. There is no substantive difference between those classes and the UNC paper classes. Furthermore, any class in which a person can get an A and only have to prepare 10 minutes before class is not a college level class. (I took one or two of them myself.)

Except that showing up to class and preparing for 10 minutes a class is infinitely more rigorous than the UNC paper class scheme. I don't know why you are having trouble understanding this.


I’m not sure I follow this. Why do you think that the enforcement staff didn’t charge academic fraud?

Because UNC won't admit academic fraud.


So please state your rule, which will distinguish between the UNC paper classes and the equally easy classes available at every university.

Any equally easy class at another University would be academic fraud, but such courses don't exist. Well, they did exist at UGa and the basketball team was penalized. They also had a similar scam at Auburn and they got in trouble for it. The difference is both Universities rightly called it academic fraud.

[sammy3469]

UNC claims that the ACC supports its view that the actions of the ASPSA athletic academic counselors were permitted by NCAA Bylaws. It included the ACC interpretation as Exhibit 1-4 in its first bundle of exhibits (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/Exhibits-Table-of-Contents-Exhibit-1-1.pdf).

One question they did not ask the ACC was whether it is permissible for the athletic counselors to lead student-athletes to avail themselves of anomalous courses, not listed as such, at a rate disproportionately higher than the general student body, and whether this constituted a benefit not generally available to other students.

The entire ACC response is couched and UNC's use of it is pretty meaningless. UNC is adding additional weight and significance to 2015 memo to which they shaded the questions to the best possible light to say what the ASPSA counselors were doing is not a 16.3 violations. As the ACC notes:


In general, I would note that certain questions were difficult to answer without additional context and where that was the case, I have attempted to provide various considerations that would need to be evaluated. Further, inasmuch as the questions contemplate interactions between an academic athletics counselor and an academic department staff member (as opposed to the professor teaching the course), I have noted in some responses that this interaction would lead to scrutiny due to the fact that the professor may be the more appropriate point of contact. Finally, the analysis done by my team does not include an evaluation of the practices outlined in the
questions against institutional policies.

So basically, if the fact patterns are as UNC asserts to the ACC then maybe our conclusions are definitive.

Additionally, the ACC itself says only fact patterns 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 MAY be OK, while 5 and 6 definitely aren't OK and 8 and 9 need additional data. On 8 and 9 the ACC even goes so far to say:


We would strongly suggest that these interactions be prohibited going forward, regardless of the circumstances, as they would raise scrutiny to which the institution would be responsible for responding.

So UNC is trying to use this as a definitive get out of jail card for acts before 2015 that may or may not violate 16.3 while the ACC is saying all activities may increase scrutiny. It's laughable, but par for the course with UNC.

[Neals384]

Don't we have emails to/from Crowder, asking for a specific grade that a specific student/athlete needs? In other words, athletics specified the grade a student should get. If NCAA has the unredacted version, those students can be considered ineligible based on academic fraud.

[PackMan97]

Don't we have emails to/from Crowder, asking for a specific grade that a specific student/athlete needs? In other words, athletics specified the grade a student should get. If NCAA has the unredacted version, those students can be considered ineligible based on academic fraud.

A few smoking guns...all posts from Ted Tatos' twitter account
https://twitter.com/TedTatos

Athlete only section is a red flag - wants to maintain some academic credibility
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAyeCpvUMAA9yNY.jpg:large

Debbie being told what grade was needed as well as taking a pass on apparent plagerism.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAycq3KUIAAFyVV.jpg:large

Athletic Department telling AFAM Department whether it needs a course or not.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAyUSpNVoAERs0G.jpg:large

Coach Fedora making sure a player graduates out the back door since he's no longer wanted on the team. I love the line "it would be a good idea to inform the student soi they can have their senior day.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAo_l4IWAAIq-wa.jpg:large

[PackMan97]

Athletes are not fit to sit in a classroom, given independent studies instead. I thought IS are supposed to be used only for exemplary students?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAn8ZCxXkAAESfy.jpg:large

Debbie Crowder very upset at plagerism and well...scolds the athletes a little.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAnHA21XcAcTrD6.jpg

Crowder's affidavit that lots of work was required.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAnHEMdXsAA05fG.jpg

[PackMan97]

Don't we have emails to/from Crowder, asking for a specific grade that a specific student/athlete needs? In other words, athletics specified the grade a student should get. If NCAA has the unredacted version, those students can be considered ineligible based on academic fraud.

I imagine UNC will fight even this, but there are only a few smoking gun emails out there and as a last resort, UNC will use them and say you can prove this one student in this one class for this one semester....you can only punish that specific case. UNC will fight any type of summary judgement tooth and nail. They'll claim the other 1499 athletes enrolled in fake courses were completely legit unless than NCAA can prove otherwise.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I imagine UNC will fight even this, but there are only a few smoking gun emails out there and as a last resort, UNC will use them and say you can prove this one student in this one class for this one semester...you can only punish that specific case. UNC will fight any type of summary judgement tooth and nail. They'll claim the other 1499 athletes enrolled in fake courses were completely legit unless than NCAA can prove otherwise.
Only one student is needed to take down a banner.

[Indoor66]

I imagine UNC will fight even this, but there are only a few smoking gun emails out there and as a last resort, UNC will use them and say you can prove this one student in this one class for this one semester...you can only punish that specific case. UNC will fight any type of summary judgement tooth and nail. They'll claim the other 1499 athletes enrolled in fake courses were completely legit unless than NCAA can prove otherwise.

With the volume of evidence, the emails and UnCheat admissions on the academics, does the burden shift to the Cheats?

[UrinalCake]

^ many of those emails were discussed in the NCAA's interview with Crowder and can be read in the transcript. The statement about having "a little bit of academic integrity to uphold" was dismissed as being sarcastic or facetious. Not putting an athlete in a class by himself was because all students should get equal treatment. "Recycled papers" were defined as when a student submits the same paper for two classes they are taking at the same time, and surprisingly there is actually no university against it (though that has since been revised). And the email from Boxhill providing a grade that was required was explained in a previous interview with Boxhill as what the general requirement was for the class, not what the player needs to stay eligible.

These are all the excuses that Crowder gave. From the line of questioning in that interview, it did sound to be like the NCAA wasn't buying in.

[arnie]

That’s all I’m saying. Every school, including Duke and State, has professors who are willing to let somebody do an easy independent study and who are prepared to grade extremely leniently. There is no substantive difference between those classes and the UNC paper classes. Furthermore, any class in which a person can get an A and only have to prepare 10 minutes before class is not a college level class. (I took one or two of them myself.)



So the rule is that a few here and there are just easy classes but too many of them become academic fraud? Is that rule coherent or workable?



I’m not sure I follow this. Why do you think that the enforcement staff didn’t charge academic fraud?



So please state your rule, which will distinguish between the UNC paper classes and the equally easy classes available at every university.
I've always thought they would avoid any significant penalties and also sure the cheats will fight sanctions every way possible. However, the SEC and BIG members should be irate when that happens.

Could the other major conferences suggest their members refuse to play the cheats in any future regular season events? This would further embarrass the cheats and at least keep the scandal out in front for years. I've given up on the Swofford-lead ACC even admonishing the cheats, much less taking any action.

[swood1000]

Could the othermajor conferences suggest their members refuse to play the cheats in any futureregular season events?
I guess they could. There might be some breach of contract ramifications when it comes to things like the annual Big Ten/ACC series. But if UNC is properly punished by the COI why wouldn’t the other conferences consider that sufficient, especially given that basketball games with UNC are a big media payday for all concerned?

[BigWayne]

^ many of those emails were discussed in the NCAA's interview with Crowder and can be read in the transcript. The statement about having "a little bit of academic integrity to uphold" was dismissed as being sarcastic or facetious. Not putting an athlete in a class by himself was because all students should get equal treatment. "Recycled papers" were defined as when a student submits the same paper for two classes they are taking at the same time, and surprisingly there is actually no university against it (though that has since been revised). And the email from Boxhill providing a grade that was required was explained in a previous interview with Boxhill as what the general requirement was for the class, not what the player needs to stay eligible.

These are all the excuses that Crowder gave. From the line of questioning in that interview, it did sound to be like the NCAA wasn't buying in.

This is the important point. Ever since the NCAA spit back the NOA2 response with an upgrade to the charges, there is no reason to believe the NCAA will interpret anything in the cheaters' favor.

[Tom B.]

However, Crowder is not a faculty member and therefore does not have the authority to determine what is or is not significant academic content.

Thank you, that's something that's been bugging me ever since that affidavit of hers was released. She's basically a glorified secretary. And UNC wants everyone to think, "Well, Debbie Crowder says the courses were legit, so they must be OK!" Please.



I remember a time when the ACC as a conference dealt with issues like academic fraud- Have we fallen so far that the ACC is impotent to act when the NCAA can't or won't or for whatever reason doesn't?
Has has our collective academic credibility fallen so low that we as a conference no longer care?
I wonder does anyone still thing the NCAA threat of someday sanctions is still adversely affecting Carolina recruiting ( probably some but the effect is waning?) Isn't it time we started looking outside the box for alternative solutions? I mean more concrete solutions than just losing respect for UNC-CH (eat) and no longer finding them worthy as rivals.

That's one of the great ironies of this whole mess. When Clemson got popped by the NCAA back in the early 1980s, the ACC also levied its own sanctions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1982/11/09/clemson-gets-two-years-in-acc-sanctions/f9aa5663-3b4b-42fd-a00e-d470cfaa55a5/?utm_term=.2f90bd2811db) against Clemson. It's always been my understanding that the member institution that was most vocal in leading the charge for the ACC to impose its own sanctions, on top of the NCAA's, was...UNC.

And then there was the case of N.C. State, which the NCAA sanctioned in 1989 for some comparatively minor violations (players selling game tickets and shoes for extra cash, etc.). It wasn't the NCAA sanctions that doomed State to a decade-plus of basketball purgatory, though. It was the fact that after the violations emerged, State's administration actually did some real housecleaning and significantly tightened academic standards for athletes.

The ACC didn't impose separate penalties against State, but there was no shortage of tut-tutting from the Carolina faithful, as they looked down their noses and wagged their fingers at their agrarian land grant cousin.

And now, this.

So yeah, you could say some of the ACC's other institutions have some legitimate axes to grind.

[Olympic Fan]

Only one student is needed to take down a banner.

(1) UNC instituted a rule in 2004 that limited undergraduates to two independent study classes a semester

(2) Rashad McCants took FOUR independent study (phony) classes in the spring of 2005 -- we know because he admitted it and voluntarily released his transcripts

(3) Thereby, by UNC's own rules, McCants was ineligible in the fall of 2005 -- even if we ignore the question of whether any or all of his four classes were phony.

(4) UNC's 2005 national title has to be vacated.

Note: McCants is not the only player on that team that was taking phony courses. He challenged his teammates to release their transcipts ... but none of them did

But Wainstein (and the NCAA) have access to the transcripts. Wainstein's report contains the number of athletes that would have been ineligible without the phony classes (although I forget at the moment what that number is)

[devildeac]

Thank you, that's something that's been bugging me ever since that affidavit of hers was released. She's basically a glorified secretary. And UNC wants everyone to think, "Well, Debbie Crowder says the courses were legit, so they must be OK!" Please.




That's one of the great ironies of this whole mess. When Clemson got popped by the NCAA back in the early 1980s, the ACC also levied its own sanctions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1982/11/09/clemson-gets-two-years-in-acc-sanctions/f9aa5663-3b4b-42fd-a00e-d470cfaa55a5/?utm_term=.2f90bd2811db) against Clemson. It's always been my understanding that the member institution that was most vocal in leading the charge for the ACC to impose its own sanctions, on top of the NCAA's, was...UNC.

And then there was the case of N.C. State, which the NCAA sanctioned in 1989 for some comparatively minor violations (players selling game tickets and shoes for extra cash, etc.). It wasn't the NCAA sanctions that doomed State to a decade-plus of basketball purgatory, though. It was the fact that after the violations emerged, State's administration actually did some real housecleaning and significantly tightened academic standards for athletes.

The ACC didn't impose separate penalties against State, but there was no shortage of tut-tutting from the Carolina faithful, as they looked down their noses and wagged their fingers at their agrarian land grant cousin.

And now, this.

So yeah, you could say some of the ACC's other institutions have some legitimate axes to grind.

Hopefully, more than just grinding:



7455

[swood1000]

(1) UNC instituted a rule in 2004 that limited undergraduates to two independent study classes a semester

(2) Rashad McCants took FOUR independent study (phony) classes in the spring of 2005 -- we know because he admitted it and voluntarily released his transcripts

(3) Thereby, by UNC's own rules, McCants was ineligible in the fall of 2005 -- even if we ignore the question of whether any or all of his four classes were phony.

All true but we know that the allegation along this line was removed in NOA-2 and NOA-3 and so there is not going to be a finding of ineligibility for this reason without NOA-4. Maybe when all the dust has settled the enforcement staff will explain its reasoning. Perhaps they concluded that non-athletes also were permitted to exceed the 12 hour limit and to include these courses as applicable toward graduation.

Another problem with this was the confusion between “independent study” and “special study” classes before 2007. The 12 hour limit was really on the “special study” classes (what we think of as independent study), with “independent study” actually being a kind of class that allowed students to work at their own pace and take up to nine months to complete a course. The only limit on them was 30 hours toward graduation. Crowder signed people up for “independent study” but treated them as “special study” (i.e. they had to finish in one semester didn’t get nine months). Maybe the enforcement staff decided that there was too much confusion to make charges stick on this point.


(4) UNC's 2005 national title has to be vacated.

Agreed, but it’s going to be on the basis of extra benefits, not ineligibility as a result of defective classes.

[PackMan97]

7455

What did VT do to you? Yikes...Carolina cheats and a Hookie gets beheaded!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/94/29/e794292ed35d905b9557f42a398fc8fe.jpg

[Olympic Fan]

That's one of the great ironies of this whole mess. When Clemson got popped by the NCAA back in the early 1980s, the ACC also levied its own sanctions (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1982/11/09/clemson-gets-two-years-in-acc-sanctions/f9aa5663-3b4b-42fd-a00e-d470cfaa55a5/?utm_term=.2f90bd2811db) against Clemson. It's always been my understanding that the member institution that was most vocal in leading the charge for the ACC to impose its own sanctions, on top of the NCAA's, was...UNC.

And then there was the case of N.C. State, which the NCAA sanctioned in 1989 for some comparatively minor violations (players selling game tickets and shoes for extra cash, etc.). It wasn't the NCAA sanctions that doomed State to a decade-plus of basketball purgatory, though. It was the fact that after the violations emerged, State's administration actually did some real housecleaning and significantly tightened academic standards for athletes.

The ACC didn't impose separate penalties against State, but there was no shortage of tut-tutting from the Carolina faithful, as they looked down their noses and wagged their fingers at their agrarian land grant cousin.

And now, this.

So yeah, you could say some of the ACC's other institutions have some legitimate axes to grind.

So who as the athletic director at UNC who pushed the conference to levy additional penalties against Clemson in 1981? In fact, John Swofford led the charge to punish the Tigers beyond the NCAA. I doubt he takes a similar stance this time.

Also, the ACC levied additional penalties against NC State in 1957, when the NCAA punished them harshly (five year postseason ban in ALL sports) for the Jackie Moreland recruitment.

And, Tom, as for the post about McCants. I know what's included in the NOA, but I also know that the NCAA can act when a university doesn't follow its own rules in regard to an athlete. This used to come up a lot when players were caught smoking grass --the NCAA had no set policy, except that every school have its own policy - and enforce it. One school might have a rule that a first offense would be dismissal ... another school might allow a warning, a probation, then a dismissal for a third offense. The only time the NCAA got involved was when a school didn't enforce its own policy.

In McCants' case, the important fact is that UNC had a rule limiting undergraduates to two independent studies courses a semester. McCants took four... UNC can't argue that the courses were valid -- even if they were, he violated a UNC rule by taking four of them in one semester.

The NCAA HAS to rule him ineligible.

[yancem]

I keep hoping to open this thread and read how the hammer has dropped!!!! As much as I think that the continued cloud is negatively impacting unc's recruiting and would love to see it linger, I'm kind of getting tired of all the back and forth (between unc and the ncaa not posters on the board) and like for the madness to finally end. I can't believe that since this whole thing was uncovered, we have seen Penn State, Syracuse and a couple of others go through the entire process. I feel like the ncaa should act like a responsible parent and finally tell unc it is time to stop arguing, they are wrong and send them to their room without dinner! Seriously how long can the ncaa allow unc to argue like a petulant child, just say because I said so and move on :D

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

So who as the athletic director at UNC who pushed the conference to levy additional penalties against Clemson in 1981? In fact, John Swofford led the charge to punish the Tigers beyond the NCAA. I doubt he takes a similar stance this time.

Also, the ACC levied additional penalties against NC State in 1957, when the NCAA punished them harshly (five year postseason ban in ALL sports) for the Jackie Moreland recruitment.

And, Tom, as for the post about McCants. I know what's included in the NOA, but I also know that the NCAA can act when a university doesn't follow its own rules in regard to an athlete. This used to come up a lot when players were caught smoking grass --the NCAA had no set policy, except that every school have its own policy - and enforce it. One school might have a rule that a first offense would be dismissal ... another school might allow a warning, a probation, then a dismissal for a third offense. The only time the NCAA got involved was when a school didn't enforce its own policy.

In McCants' case, the important fact is that UNC had a rule limiting undergraduates to two independent studies courses a semester. McCants took four... UNC can't argue that the courses were valid -- even if they were, he violated a UNC rule by taking four of them in one semester.

The NCAA HAS to rule him ineligible.
But doesn't The NCAA have to charge the cheats with this specific violation? And if so, have they in fact done so? Or otherwise set the stage for this specific violation and resultant punishment?

[Tom B.]

And, Tom, as for the post about McCants....

I think it was swood1000 who responded to your post about McCants. Wasn't me.

[swood1000]

With the volume of evidence, the emails and UnCheat admissions on the academics, does the burden shift to the Cheats?

If the NCAA meets its burden of proof then the burden switches to UNC. With respect to Allegation 1 and the possibility of having wins vacated the first thing it has to prove is that there was something wrong with the paper classes, namely that they were easier than regular classes. UNC is asserting that the NCAA is not competent to evaluate academic rigor, and that the membership never gave it authority to attempt to do so. I think that all the evidence from the Wainstein report, together with UNC’s declaration that these classes would not be good toward graduation for those not yet graduated, will meet the burden of showing that the classes were of diminished academic rigor. I suggested that the COI might announce the Carolina Rule: it does not have to be proven that a class is substandard if the institution has admitted the fact (even if at the urging of their accrediting body).

Next the enforcement staff will have the burden of showing that the actions of Crowder, Nyang’oro and the athletic counselors constituted a benefit to the athletes not generally available to the non-athlete students, at least on the same scale. UNC disputes that the particular activities charged, such as “suggesting assignments” are violations of the NCAA Bylaws. UNC asserts that the non-athletes got the same benefit and had the same access as the athletes. They dispute Wainstein’s definition of “student-athlete” and some of Wainstein’s statistics. They claim that of the total number of students who took the paper classes, 73% were not student-athletes. They also claim that over 70% of the enrollments in the paper classes were not by student-athletes, that these figures unquestionably show that the courses were generally available to non-athletes, and that this was a result of a robust word-of-mouth on campus that gave the non-athletes equal access. There is a lot we don’t know about this part of the enforcement staff’s case, including the contents of many emails and interviews, and it may be too early to say that the burden on this has definitely shifted to UNC.

[swood1000]

I know what's included in the NOA, but I also know that the NCAA can act when a university doesn't follow its own rules in regard to an athlete. This used to come up a lot when players were caught smoking grass --the NCAA had no set policy, except that every school have its own policy - and enforce it. One school might have a rule that a first offense would be dismissal ... another school might allow a warning, a probation, then a dismissal for a third offense. The only time the NCAA got involved was when a school didn't enforce its own policy.

In McCants' case, the important fact is that UNC had a rule limiting undergraduates to two independent studies courses a semester. McCants took four... UNC can't argue that the courses were valid -- even if they were, he violated a UNC rule by taking four of them in one semester.

The NCAA HAS to rule him ineligible.

Well, I hope you’re right but the enforcement staff has already said that they are not going to be making that argument, so UNC will not have to respond to it. One thing that makes me pessimistic that the COI will reach this conclusion on its own is that in November they told the enforcement staff, in effect, to reinstate the extra benefit charges (resulting in NOA-3). However they didn’t say anything about reinstating the charges having to do with independent study classes so it seems unlikely that they will make such findings on their own. Furthermore, your theory assumes that whatever reasons the enforcement staff had for withdrawing those charges were insufficient, and we don’t even know what those reasons were. Besides, if the extra benefit charges are successful they don’t need those other charges.

[devildeac]

What did VT do to you? Yikes...Carolina cheats and a Hookie gets beheaded!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/94/29/e794292ed35d905b9557f42a398fc8fe.jpg


I put a turkey there symbolically because I couldn't find a photo of a cheating blue ram/sheep with an axe at its neck. :o

But, who knows, maybe the NCAA will punish the Hokies instead of the true cheaters. :mad:

[kmspeaks]

Should someone be looking out for Rashad? (http://247sports.com/Bolt/Look-Marquise-Williams-tweets-threat-to-Rashad-McCants-52931999)

7456

[Indoor66]

If the NCAA meets its burden of proof then the burden switches to UNC. With respect to Allegation 1 and the possibility of having wins vacated the first thing it has to prove is that there was something wrong with the paper classes, namely that they were easier than regular classes. UNC is asserting that the NCAA is not competent to evaluate academic rigor, and that the membership never gave it authority to attempt to do so. I think that all the evidence from the Wainstein report, together with UNC’s declaration that these classes would not be good toward graduation for those not yet graduated, will meet the burden of showing that the classes were of diminished academic rigor. I suggested that the COI might announce the Carolina Rule: it does not have to be proven that a class is substandard if the institution has admitted the fact (even if at the urging of their accrediting body).

Next the enforcement staff will have the burden of showing that the actions of Crowder, Nyang’oro and the athletic counselors constituted a benefit to the athletes not generally available to the non-athlete students, at least on the same scale. UNC disputes that the particular activities charged, such as “suggesting assignments” are violations of the NCAA Bylaws. UNC asserts that the non-athletes got the same benefit and had the same access as the athletes. They dispute Wainstein’s definition of “student-athlete” and some of Wainstein’s statistics. They claim that of the total number of students who took the paper classes, 73% were not student-athletes. They also claim that over 70% of the enrollments in the paper classes were not by student-athletes, that these figures unquestionably show that the courses were generally available to non-athletes, and that this was a result of a robust word-of-mouth on campus that gave the non-athletes equal access. There is a lot we don’t know about this part of the enforcement staff’s case, including the contents of many emails and interviews, and it may be too early to say that the burden on this has definitely shifted to UNC.

The burden of proof is not a beyond reasonable doubt, criminal standard; it would be a civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. As such, a res ipsa loquitor type of approach would not be out of the question, would it?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Well, I hope you’re right but the enforcement staff has already said that they are not going to be making that argument, so UNC will not have to respond to it. One thing that makes me pessimistic that the COI will reach this conclusion on its own is that in November they told the enforcement staff, in effect, to reinstate the extra benefit charges (resulting in NOA-3). However they didn’t say anything about reinstating the charges having to do with independent study classes so it seems unlikely that they will make such findings on their own. Furthermore, your theory assumes that whatever reasons the enforcement staff had for withdrawing those charges were insufficient, and we don’t even know what those reasons were. Besides, if the extra benefit charges are successful they don’t need those other charges.
Kinda feels like they are taking the Elliot Ness approach... the cheats engaged in a boatload of crooked activity, but the NCAA is only going after the stuff they think they can win on.

[sagegrouse]

Here's a new thought that came to me -- only after five years posting on this and related threads!

If you want to pursue a slam duck to its ultimate conclusion -- how about Jan Boxill as the prime candidate? While her specific misbehavior and violations were mostly limited to women's basketball, she was, in fact, the Dean of the UNC faculty and the director of the Parr center for Ethics. Dean of the Faculty? Head of UNC's premier ethics institute? Holy moley!! Is she, all by herself, an argument for "lack of institutional control?" Could Boxill's activities and position not lead to UNC-wide penalties?

[UrinalCake]

If you want to pursue a slam duck to its ultimate conclusion -- how about Jan Boxill as the prime candidate?

I assume that's a typo, but I can't figure out if you meant to say "slam dunk" or "lame duck." Regardless, there is plenty to implicate Boxhill in the Wainstein Report. When the first ANOA was released, it appeared that UNC was trying to throw her under the bus in order to allow women's basketball to take the fall, using Boxhill's involvement as the crux of their argument since her job title was associated with the women's team. For her part, she came out with a public statement about a year ago that claimed that the Wainstein Report took her statements out of context, and that she was grilled relentlessly for hours on end and thus her testimony was unreliable. UNC has been attempting to discredit the Wainstein Report for a couple years now (even though they themselves commissioned the report, and before its findings were revealed they claimed it would provide the rock solid truth as to what happened).

The whole department is guilty, but UNC keeps shifting the blame - first to Crowder and Nyangoro, then to Boxhill and the women's team, and now they are attempting to exonerate Crowder and claim that nobody was guilty at all.

[moonpie23]

unc legal eagles laughing at the ncaa...


7461

[OldPhiKap]

"Skating away,
Skating a-way-hey!
Skating away
On the thin ice of
A
New day . . . "

-- Jethro Tull

[jwillfan]

Greg Allman RIP. UNC...rest in infamy?


"Skating away,
Skating a-way-hey!
Skating away
On the thin ice of
A
New day . . . "

-- Jethro Tull

[weezie]

...UNC...rest in infamy?

No rest for the wicked, jwillfan. ROAST IN HELL holes.

[swood1000]

The burden of proof is not a beyond reasonable doubt, criminal standard; it would be a civil standard of preponderance of the evidence. As such, a res ipsa loquitor type of approach would not be out of the question, would it?

Res ipsa loquitor is a method of switching to the defendant the burden of proving that he was not negligent where the injury is of a type that usually doesn’t happen without negligence and the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the injury. This would be appropriate in the negligence portion of these allegations: the lack of institutional control. As for Allegation 1, though, I’m not sure that the enforcement staff could argue successfully that paper classes usually don’t happen without involving extra benefits to athletes. Paper classes could easily result in equal benefits to non-athletes.

[MarkD83]

We talk about extra benefits as they apply to students and athletes at unc. However if the comparison is to all NCAA members than paper classes at unc are benefits that athletes at other schools do not have.

[swood1000]

We talk about extra benefits as they apply to students and athletes at unc. However if the comparison is to all NCAA members than paper classes at unc are benefits that athletes at other schools do not have.
Except that extra benefits are determined by whether the same benefit is generally available to the institution's students.
 
16.02.3 Extra Benefit. [A] An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete family member or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their family members or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.

[English]

We talk about extra benefits as they apply to students and athletes at unc. However if the comparison is to all NCAA members than paper classes at unc are benefits that athletes at other schools do not have.

If that comparison (between athletes at institution X vs. other member institutions) was the chosen one used by the NCAA, big money schools with vast state-of-the-art facilities would be in violation because most member institutions can't afford such luxurious accommodations. That's just one example of many. Duke athletes using the SportVU technology, for example, would constitute extra benefits that no other institutions' athletes (save Marquette and maybe one other?) can leverage.

[PackMan97]

Except that extra benefits are determined by whether the same benefit is generally available to the institution's students.
 
16.02.3 Extra Benefit. [A] An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete family member or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their family members or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.

Good thing we know that from Debbie Crowder's testimony that registration from paper classes was not announced to the general public and they had to show up to DC office, whereas for athletes, their advisors were told about them and the advisors and DC took care of registration.

So, yes they were open to all students, but good luck finding them!

[sammy3469]

Except that extra benefits are determined by whether the same benefit is generally available to the institution's students.
 
16.02.3 Extra Benefit. [A] An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete family member or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their family members or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.

BTW the COI can slide basically anything they want through that extra benefit definition with the wording of "not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation" since they've never really authorized any academic extra benefits besides what is outlined in 16.3.

Note, UNC is trying to say since the ACC said those scenarios aren't extra benefits (which is gross misrepresentation of the ACC memo in any case) then the NCAA should take that finding at its face. However, the ACC isn't the NCAA and in the end if the actions by UNC employees (the statute doesn't discriminate between athletic and academic ones like UNC tries to do) aren't expressly authorized by the NCAA and aren't generally available to all, then it is an extra benefit.

This is another reason the presumption is on UNC to prove what the ASPSA was doing was available to all since the COI can take the broadest possible definition of extra benefit they want.

[swood1000]

The NCAA denies it can be sued by students (such as McCants) who got a bad education, because it has no legal duty toward students in this regard. My pet peeve is the people who say, “Oh, well then the NCAA is admitting that it has no duty to anybody regarding the quality of a student-athlete’s education.” Here’s an example from UNC’s response to NOA-3:


“In litigation over the Courses, the NCAA rejected the idea that it regulates the content of college courses or that it has any duty concerning the quality of a student-athlete’s education. (See Exhibit 1-6 at pp. 5, 11, 15.) As such, the Panel cannot find violations based upon the structure, content, and administration of the Courses for which the required work was done, grades and credit were given, and those grades count. Indeed, such a position would contradict the position that won the NCAA a dismissal in the McCants lawsuit. (See Exhibit 1-6, pp. 3-4.)”

What’s wrong with these people? It is one thing to say that the NCAA has no legal duty to students and so can’t be sued by students who think their education was deficient. But it can still have a duty to the NCAA member institutions to make sure that one institution does not lighten the academic load in a way that benefits athletes to a greater degree than non-athlete students. Is it so hard to see that having a duty to the student-athletes is not the same as having a duty to the member institutions who hired the NCAA and gave it its marching orders?

[Olympic Fan]

Great story on a UNC blog, urging that UNC take Rashad McCants' jersey down from the Smith Center because he has claimed that he was only eligible in 2005 because of UNC -- with Roy Williams' knowledge -- played around with his courses to make him eligible for the fall, then put him in four phony classes (McCants famously declared that he made Dean's list that spring without attending a single class) for the spring on 2005, while he was too busy helping UNC win the national title to attend any classes:

http://www.tarheelblog.com/2017/6/1/15716938/rashad-mccants-north-carolina-jersey-tar-heels-smith-center

McCants also claimed that several of his teammates that year were in the same boat -- when they disputed him, he challenged them to release their transcripts as he did. Not one did.

I'd really like to ask the blogger that if it's appropriate to take McCants' jersey down from the rafters, wouldn't it also be appropriate to take down the championship banner that he was so much a part of winning?

[DukieInKansas]

Great story on a UNC blog, urging that UNC take Rashad McCants' jersey down from the Smith Center because he has claimed that he was only eligible in 2005 because of UNC -- with Roy Williams' knowledge -- played around with his courses to make him eligible for the fall, then put him in four phony classes (McCants famously declared that he made Dean's list that spring without attending a single class) for the spring on 2005, while he was too busy helping UNC win the national title to attend any classes:

http://www.tarheelblog.com/2017/6/1/15716938/rashad-mccants-north-carolina-jersey-tar-heels-smith-center

McCants also claimed that several of his teammates that year were in the same boat -- when they disputed him, he challenged them to release their transcripts as he did. Not one did.

I'd really like to ask the blogger that if it's appropriate to take McCants' jersey down from the rafters, wouldn't it also be appropriate to take down the championship banner that he was so much a part of winning?

Haven't read the blog yet but I'm going to guess that they want it down because his claim cast aspersions on unc and not because he didn't earn his grades legitimately.

[plimnko]

this might have been mentioned somewhere else is this thread of dirty uncheats discussions..... if this academic fraud and cheating was open to ALL students, doesn't it sort of cheapen ALL degrees from unc? of the comparative few who cheated and lied, i would be irate if i had worked my butt off and did things the honest and aboveboard way only to hear the easy way was there for the taking from ALL students.

[Pghdukie]

How about an employer who hires a UNC grad that shows a degree but isn't competent to do the job. How much $$$ does employer lose ?

[Duke79UNLV77]

How about an employer who hires a UNC grad that shows a degree but isn't competent to do the job. How much $$$ does employer lose ?

Are you referring to Hansblahblah's NBA career??

[MarkD83]

How about an employer who hires a UNC grad that shows a degree but isn't competent to do the job. How much $$$ does employer lose ?

Unfortunately for the regular UNC student there is already an opportunity cost that they may never see. How many employers look at a resume and see a UNC degree and wonder whether it is worth inviting the person in for an interview.

[BigWayne]

Unfortunately for the regular UNC student there is already an opportunity cost that they may never see. How many employers look at a resume and see a UNC degree and wonder whether it is worth inviting the person in for an interview.

I don't wonder. UNC on resume = circular file.
Goes for vendors also.

[CDu]

this might have been mentioned somewhere else is this thread of dirty uncheats discussions... if this academic fraud and cheating was open to ALL students, doesn't it sort of cheapen ALL degrees from unc? of the comparative few who cheated and lied, i would be irate if i had worked my butt off and did things the honest and aboveboard way only to hear the easy way was there for the taking from ALL students.

A few things:
1. Despite what UNC would like us to believe, it wasn't really available to all students
2. It was in one or two departments, so even if it was available to more students, only students in those departments would really benefit from it.

If you got a degree from the med school, the school of nursing, the school of public health, the econ department, or almost any other department, employers are pretty aware that your degree wasn't compromised. As much as UNC wants to call this an academic issue, it really isn't. It was an athletics issue involving a department or two that was willing to break the rules specifically for athletics benefit. The VAAAAAST majority of the school was not involved.

I would question the degree of any student-athlete from UNC over the last 25 years. I wouldn't question the degree over the average student at UNC over that time frame.

[LastRowFan]

I would question the degree of any student-athlete from UNC over the last 25 years. I wouldn't question the degree over the average student at UNC over that time frame.

Question, perhaps. But assuming all student athletes at UNC are frauds is going too far. Some of them are as outraged as the rest of us. There is this guy, for example:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article10109288.html

"Brock Baker was a Morehead Scholar and four-year member of the varsity cross country and track and field teams at UNC from 2005-2009. He is in his fourth year of medical school at UNC."

He wrote (in part):


I’m still struggling to wrap my head around the massive scale of the athletic-academic scandal detailed in Kenneth Wainstein’s damning report. Yes, it’s true that many of these details have come out in bits and pieces over the past four years, yet such was my love for UNC I could not help but see the world through Carolina blue-colored glasses. No more. We now know the full extent of the truth, and that truth is shameful.

I said the student-athlete ideal was all a lie, but that perhaps goes too far. I know I never took any sham classes and earned every grade (good or bad) I received. What’s more, participating in collegiate athletics was instrumental in my growth toward becoming a mature adult, as I know it was for many of my teammates and friends. Through college sports we learned humility, teamwork, perseverance, leadership and the patience to marshal our efforts over months and years in order to achieve long-term goals. We enjoyed success, and we coped with failure.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Question, perhaps. But assuming all student athletes at UNC are frauds is going too far. Some of them are as outraged as the rest of us. There is this guy, for example:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article10109288.html

"Brock Baker was a Morehead Scholar and four-year member of the varsity cross country and track and field teams at UNC from 2005-2009. He is in his fourth year of medical school at UNC."

He wrote (in part):


I’m still struggling to wrap my head around the massive scale of the athletic-academic scandal detailed in Kenneth Wainstein’s damning report. Yes, it’s true that many of these details have come out in bits and pieces over the past four years, yet such was my love for UNC I could not help but see the world through Carolina blue-colored glasses. No more. We now know the full extent of the truth, and that truth is shameful.

I said the student-athlete ideal was all a lie, but that perhaps goes too far. I know I never took any sham classes and earned every grade (good or bad) I received. What’s more, participating in collegiate athletics was instrumental in my growth toward becoming a mature adult, as I know it was for many of my teammates and friends. Through college sports we learned humility, teamwork, perseverance, leadership and the patience to marshal our efforts over months and years in order to achieve long-term goals. We enjoyed success, and we coped with failure.


This is precisely the sort of response that I was expecting years ago when this story broke. If I were a legit UNC student athlete (no matter how cynical some of us are, we have to assume they exist) I would be completely outraged to have my person achievements besmirched. To know that your resume will elicit eye rolls when you know you earned your degree would make me livid at the institution that I had worked hard for in so many different ways.

Kudos to this young man for stepping up. Honestly, the crickets and silence from UNC student athletes made things even more damning.

[PackMan97]

Another UNC athlete speaks out on the scam, and skewers UNC for their response to it.

https://victoriajacksonsports.com/2017/06/01/thoughts-on-unc-response-to-ncaas-to-2nd-amended-noa/

[sagegrouse]

This is precisely the sort of response that I was expecting years ago when this story broke. If I were a legit UNC student athlete (no matter how cynical some of us are, we have to assume they exist) I would be completely outraged to have my person achievements besmirched. To know that your resume will elicit eye rolls when you know you earned your degree would make me livid at the institution that I had worked hard for in so many different ways.

Kudos to this young man for stepping up. Honestly, the crickets and silence from UNC student athletes made things even more damning.

No surprise. It's a herd -- er, sheep -- mentality

[howardlander]

Another UNC athlete speaks out on the scam, and skewers UNC for their response to it.

https://victoriajacksonsports.com/2017/06/01/thoughts-on-unc-response-to-ncaas-to-2nd-amended-noa/

Hard to disagree with any of what she wrote.

[AtlDuke72]

Hard to disagree with any of what she wrote.

Is there a finish line, one way or the other, in sight? it is hard to believe that it has taken this long to come to a decision.

[Lar77]

Is there a finish line, one way or the other, in sight? it is hard to believe that it has taken this long to come to a decision.

I was hoping within 90 days after the COI hearing in August, but then I had a thought, which I pose for our litigators: Can UNC seek an injunction to stop the COI hearings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction? Could that be a safe way out of this - I'm assuming the injunction hearing would not require or allow discovery. If the court agrees with UNC, then they are home free. If it doesn't, they are no worse off and have bought a little more time. The PR spin would be that UNC wants to affirm the propriety of the NCAA looking into this.

[UrinalCake]

This is precisely the sort of response that I was expecting years ago when this story broke. If I were a legit UNC student athlete (no matter how cynical some of us are, we have to assume they exist) I would be completely outraged to have my person achievements besmirched. To know that your resume will elicit eye rolls when you know you earned your degree would make me livid at the institution that I had worked hard for in so many different ways.

How about the students who legitimately majored in AFAM? Their program will be forever regarded as a sham degree that was fabricated to allow athletes who are too dumb for college work to achieve eligibility. If I recall correctly, shortly after the Wainstein Report was released a group of current and former AFAM majors staged some sort of protest at UNC, but their voices were never heard from again.

[OldPhiKap]

I was hoping within 90 days after the COI hearing in August, but then I had a thought, which I pose for our litigators: Can UNC seek an injunction to stop the COI hearings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction? Could that be a safe way out of this - I'm assuming the injunction hearing would not require or allow discovery. If the court agrees with UNC, then they are home free. If it doesn't, they are no worse off and have bought a little more time. The PR spin would be that UNC wants to affirm the propriety of the NCAA looking into this.

Two-part question.

First, can they seek an injunction? Yes, they certainly can file for one.

Second, would it be meritorious and therefore have a chance of success? Absent home cooking (big caveat), I would find it hard to think that a judge would enjoin the disciplinary process of a private collective body to which UNC voluntarily subjected itself. There are also some problems with UNC's claim being "ripe" (or ready) for decision, given that they would be trying to stop the NCAA from doing something that it may or may not even do. (The NCAA could reasonably determine, presumably, that UNC is correct and therefore no discipline is appropriate). To get around this, UNC would have to argue that the fix is already in against them and the hearing would be just pro forma -- and making that assertion ahead of the August hearing would take major covfefes.

So it's possible they could file for one, but I don't expect them to do so. Unless the only goal is further delay . . . .

[Indoor66]

I was hoping within 90 days after the COI hearing in August, but then I had a thought, which I pose for our litigators: Can UNC seek an injunction to stop the COI hearings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction? Could that be a safe way out of this - I'm assuming the injunction hearing would not require or allow discovery. If the court agrees with UNC, then they are home free. If it doesn't, they are no worse off and have bought a little more time. The PR spin would be that UNC wants to affirm the propriety of the NCAA looking into this.

By joining the organization, the cheats explicitly agreed to the rules of the organization. Implicit in that is acceptance of jurisdiction for the organization to apply and enforce those rules. It is hard for me to imagine a court enjoining the procedure, though in this age of activist judges, who knows.

[devildeac]

By joining the organization, the cheats explicitly agreed to the rules of the organization. Implicit in that is acceptance of jurisdiction for the organization to apply and enforce those rules. It is hard for me to imagine a court enjoining the procedure, though in this age of activist judges, who knows.

Seeing what those dirty, rotten, cheating, lying fockers have done/said since ~1988, especially in the last several years, I'm not sure any maneuver on their part would surprise me at this point. :mad:

[Indoor66]

Seeing what those dirty, rotten, cheating, lying fockers have done/said since ~1988, especially in the last several years, I'm not sure any maneuver on their part would surprise me at this point. :mad:

I agree with you. I doubt that a Court will agree with them!

[BD80]

I was hoping within 90 days after the COI hearing in August, but then I had a thought, which I pose for our litigators: Can UNC seek an injunction to stop the COI hearings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction? Could that be a safe way out of this - I'm assuming the injunction hearing would not require or allow discovery. If the court agrees with UNC, then they are home free. If it doesn't, they are no worse off and have bought a little more time. The PR spin would be that UNC wants to affirm the propriety of the NCAA looking into this.


Two-part question.

First, can they seek an injunction? Yes, they certainly can file for one.

Second, would it be meritorious and therefore have a chance of success? Absent home cooking (big caveat), I would find it hard to think that a judge would enjoin the disciplinary process of a private collective body to which UNC voluntarily subjected itself. There are also some problems with UNC's claim being "ripe" (or ready) for decision, given that they would be trying to stop the NCAA from doing something that it may or may not even do. (The NCAA could reasonably determine, presumably, that UNC is correct and therefore no discipline is appropriate). To get around this, UNC would have to argue that the fix is already in against them and the hearing would be just pro forma -- and making that assertion ahead of the August hearing would take major covfefes.

So it's possible they could file for one, but I don't expect them to do so. Unless the only goal is further delay . . . .

Implicit in your question is whether unc could seek some emergency or preliminary relief before the COI hearing and ruling.

It makes me chuckle to imagine unc's counsel standing in front of a judge arguing that unc needs expedited relief - considering unc has been stalling the COI for YEARS. But now there's an emergency?

Reminds me of my favorite trial objection: "Objection, Prejudicial!" Translation: "If you let the witness answer the question, we'll lose the case!"

[swood1000]

With respect to extra benefits, UNC has to show that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students.

To show that athletes had preferential access, the NCAA will cite Wainstein’s statement that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes, but student-athletes were only 4% of the student body. UNC disputes the 47.6%, saying that calculated properly it is really closer to 30%. But they say that either number shows that the classes were generally available to all students.

UNC argues that there is no authority for the proposition that an absence of proportionality in enrollment by student-athletes demonstrates that a class was not generally available to all students. This seems to conflict with the 1995 U. of Miami case (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=101764) in which benefits were provided to 77 athletes and 6 non-athletes, which held that the assistance was not “generally available” because it was not provided to non-athletes “on the same scale.”

UNC also points out that cultural and racial differences could account for a higher percentage of athletes taking AFAM classes. They say that “The percentage of African-American student-athletes on the football, men’s basketball, and women’s basketball squads was more than five times the percentage of African-Americans in the University’s student body.” This argument conflicts with Wainstein, who said “We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses.” To counter this UNC points out that in 21 non-paper class AFAM independent studies classes offered after Crowder’s retirement, student-athletes made up 38.5% of the enrollment. (Don’t quite see the relevance of this given Wainstein’s 8.3% figure.)

If student-athletes were 4% of the student body but made up 10% of the paper class enrollments would that demonstrate that the classes were not generally available to all? What about 30%? 47.6%? Can we say that any paper class was not generally available if its paper class characteristics were not disclosed in the course listings, so that inside information was necessary to realize what perhaps the key feature of the class was?

[Lar77]

Agree with devildeac (verbatim) and the rest of you, but nothing shocks me about the behavior (or expectations) of those scum. As many have noted, they have "evolved" their position many times when the facts get inconvenient and they have done everything to kick the can down the road.

[billy]

Not surprising that UNC has cancelled Jay Smith's class largely based on the scandal. Perhaps he should teach it at Duke and offer it to UNC students through the Robertson Scholars program:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article154031604.html

[howardlander]

Not surprising that UNC has cancelled Jay Smith's class largely based on the scandal. Perhaps he should teach it at Duke and offer it through the Robertson Scholars program:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article154031604.html

Unbelievable, but not surprising.

[OldPhiKap]

Not surprising that UNC has cancelled Jay Smith's class largely based on the scandal. Perhaps he should teach it at Duke and offer it through the Robertson Scholars program:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article154031604.html

I imagine that State and Wolfpack Nation would give him an endowed fellowship to teach it in Raleigh.

[devildeac]

I imagine that State and Wolfpack Nation would give him an endowed fellowship to teach it in Raleigh.

Our checkbook is ready...

[OldPhiKap]

Our checkbook is ready...

Maybe we should create a GoFundMe page to have it streamed as a webinar, open to all. You know, as a public service and all.

[Kfanarmy]

A few things:
1. Despite what UNC would like us to believe, it wasn't really available to all students
2. It was in one or two departments, so even if it was available to more students, only students in those departments would really benefit from it.

If you got a degree from the med school, the school of nursing, the school of public health, the econ department, or almost any other department, employers are pretty aware that your degree wasn't compromised. As much as UNC wants to call this an academic issue, it really isn't. It was an athletics issue involving a department or two that was willing to break the rules specifically for athletics benefit. The VAAAAAST majority of the school was not involved.

I would question the degree of any student-athlete from UNC over the last 25 years. I wouldn't question the degree over the average student at UNC over that time frame.


I don't really get this...We know there were more paper classes than those in the AFAM department. I have never made the assumption you indicate here. I think if you've gone to UNC in the decades since this scandal originator took the head job in the UNC Athletic department , who happens now to be the ACC commish, your transcript is sketchy. The other departments were simply never examined. So we don't know if the small number of paper classes in those other Schools are accurate. Many of the paper classes in AFAM were discovered through investigation. We don't know if Swofford and team had an arrangement with other schools, let's say the Arts, Sports Medicine at all. What we do know is that the one rock that was turned over led to a cess pool. There are likely many more rocks in the same situation that we will never know about.

[PackMan97]

If you got a degree from the med school, the school of nursing, the school of public health, the econ department, or almost any other department, employers are pretty aware that your degree wasn't compromised. As much as UNC wants to call this an academic issue, it really isn't. It was an athletics issue involving a department or two that was willing to break the rules specifically for athletics benefit. The VAAAAAST majority of the school was not involved.

I would question the degree of any student-athlete from UNC over the last 25 years. I wouldn't question the degree over the average student at UNC over that time frame.

I could not disagree more...well, maybe I could, but I don't have all day to type the response ;)

#1. It is likely the Dental school was in dirty with Fats Thomas, mouthguards and folks were likely funneling improper benefits to high profile UNC athletes. This directly ties to the integrity of the entire operation. It calls into question what the folks giving this money are getting in return. I would also say it calls into question their overall ethics of anyone associated with the Dental School/Foundation. Are they getting kickbacks/bribes for using/recommending certain products to their patients? Do I know they are putting the welfare of their patient above their own benefit?

#2. We know Matt Kupec, a Vice Chancellor at UNC and in charge of fund raising, had an affair (that ended two marriages) with Tami Hansborough (mom to Tyler) and used his influence to get her a job as well as fly both her and himself around the coutry to see her younger son play at ND games. He had to go to then Chancellor Thorpe to get approval to hire Tami for a position in which her only qualifications appears to be a) was sleeping with the boss and b) the mom of a great basketball player than Carolina wanted to stay for his Senior season. If the folks at the highest level of the university are willing to play loose and fast with ethics like this....what else do they let slide?

#3. We know through the Wainstein email dump that XSS and COMS were implicated as sources of paper classes, but never investigated. Who else gave these paper courses? Again, this goes to something being rotten in the University where the default action is cover up, deny and bury it.

#4. Don't even get me started on the sexual assault/rape crisis and title IX invesitagtion they have going on over there. That is absolutely disgusting and again goes to show that above all UNC wants to cover up any problem and avoid the hard self-examination that results in real lasting change.

#5 One of the major players, Jan Boxill was the fracking head of the Faculty Senate she was so beloved by her fellow academics. This just goes to the entire narrative that the place is rotten to the core.

#6 Deborah Strohman, a long suspected source of paper classes was promoted to the faculty of the Kenan Flagler Business school. This should tell you all you need to know about how serious UNC is about rooting out the rot. Those that keep their mouths shut, get treated very well.

#7 Their unending attacks against Whistleblowers,. and Mary Willingham in particular. If you had a research grant and wanted to consider UNC, how important is it to know if something is amiss with the research program you are funding that someone will blow the whistle? To me this gets to the core of what a Research I University is about.

UNC has shown that they will cover up, deny, deflect, attack the messenger and stop at nothing to avoid responsibility is so many different areas, no I can't be certain that the average student's education hasn't been compromised by this scandal. At the very least, without positive proof, their sense of ethics is likely highly compromised. I have a coworker who is a big UNC fan and their response to all this is basically, "Who cares, everyone does it, 2017 champs, suck it!". That is someone whom I will never trust or look at the same because of this scandal. It goes beyond sports and bleeds into how you treat people, your view on ethics, integrity and honor.

So, I hope that properly addresses whether or not I think UNC grads have the smell of taint on them.

[JasonEvans]

Another UNC athlete speaks out on the scam, and skewers UNC for their response to it.

https://victoriajacksonsports.com/2017/06/01/thoughts-on-unc-response-to-ncaas-to-2nd-amended-noa/

Everyone needs to read that very thoughtful and impassioned column. Jackson knows of what she speaks, she has the perspective of an athlete at UNC during the heart of the academic scandal. She pulls no punches and is clearly ashamed at her school for its attempts to dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

[wsb3]

I read that...Interesting. She won't be popular in baby blue land.

[CDu]

I don't really get this...We know there were more paper classes than those in the AFAM department. I have never made the assumption you indicate here. I think if you've gone to UNC in the decades since this scandal originator took the head job in the UNC Athletic department , who happens now to be the ACC commish, your transcript is sketchy. The other departments were simply never examined. So we don't know if the small number of paper classes in those other Schools are accurate. Many of the paper classes in AFAM were discovered through investigation. We don't know if Swofford and team had an arrangement with other schools, let's say the Arts, Sports Medicine at all. What we do know is that the one rock that was turned over led to a cess pool. There are likely many more rocks in the same situation that we will never know about.

Nobody in my field seems to share your concern about the School of Public Health at UNC (one of the strongest such schools in the country). Trust me; folks can tell the difference between a candidate who received a fraudulent education and one who did not.

[Stray Gator]

With respect to extra benefits, UNC has to show that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students. ...

It's evident that a strategic objective of UNC and its attorneys is to confine the focus of the "special benefits" inquiry to the sole issue of whether students other than athletes had access to the paper courses. But it seems to me that the critical question is not, or at least should not be, so narrowly limited, because the potential benefits do not end with mere access. Even if UNC can prove that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students -- putting aside for the moment the question of whether courses can be regarded as "available" when their existence is not published in the official catalog or through some other medium that would ordinarily be expected to convey notice and pertinent information to the general student population -- isn't there evidence that UNC athletes enjoyed other "special benefits" with respect to those courses that were not extended to regular students? For example, were non-athletes allowed to enroll in these courses after the normal registration closed, as athletes were apparently permitted to do? Were non-athletes required to attend classes, take tests, or satisfy other obligations from which athletes were routinely exempted? And most tellingly, was the coursework of the non-athletes graded by a secretary or other staff member not qualified to teach the course? If there is in fact sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that only the athletes were provided such differential treatment, then why wouldn't that support a finding of "special benefits" warranting the imposition of sanctions, notwithstanding any proof by UNC that the paper classes were generally available to all students?

[BigWayne]

It's evident that a strategic objective of UNC and its attorneys is to confine the focus of the "special benefits" inquiry to the sole issue of whether students other than athletes had access to the paper courses. But it seems to me that the critical question is not, or at least should not be, so narrowly limited, because the potential benefits do not end with mere access. Even if UNC can prove that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students -- putting aside for the moment the question of whether courses can be regarded as "available" when their existence is not published in the official catalog or through some other medium that would ordinarily be expected to convey notice and pertinent information to the general student population -- isn't there evidence that UNC athletes enjoyed other "special benefits" with respect to those courses that were not extended to regular students? For example, were non-athletes allowed to enroll in these courses after the normal registration closed, as athletes were apparently permitted to do? Were non-athletes required to attend classes, take tests, or satisfy other obligations from which athletes were routinely exempted? And most tellingly, was the coursework of the non-athletes graded by a secretary or other staff member not qualified to teach the course? If there is in fact sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that only the athletes were provided such differential treatment, then why wouldn't that support a finding of "special benefits" warranting the imposition of sanctions, notwithstanding any proof by UNC that the paper classes were generally available to all students?

I do not believe their argument is for the NCAA. They are floating this BS for consumption by the compliant sports media apologists and their delusional fan base. They are trying to set up the pity party to try to influence the NCAA to reduce the sanctions after the fact like they have done in a few recent cases.

[MarkD83]

I do not believe their argument is for the NCAA. They are floating this BS for consumption by the compliant sports media apologists and their delusional fan base. They are trying to set up the pity party to try to influence the NCAA to reduce the sanctions after the fact like they have done in a few recent cases.

My addition to your comment is that the UNC athletic administration is trying to offset the massive fine they may get. Since they have successfully used the "woe is me" defense they will get a lot of donations (and already have) to offset their legal costs as well as any fine. Whereas the UNC fan base will do anything to protect their banners, the UNC administration knows that their jobs and way of running the athletic department depends upon $$$$.

[Trinity_93]

"'But Mr Dent, the [courses] have been available in the local [AFAM] department for the last [eighteen years].'
'Oh, yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them yesterday. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.'
'But the [courses] were on display...'
'On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'
'That's the [AFAM] department.'
'With a flashlight.'
'Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.'
'So had the stairs.'
'But look, you found the [classes], didn't you?'
'Yes,' said Arthur, 'yes I did. [They were] on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying *Beware of the Leopard.'"

[weezie]

The Victoria Jackson piece on home page here is outstanding.

Everybody should read it and forward.

[TampaDuke]

If the fraudulent courses were widely known to the general student body despite no publication of them, they would have been known to many administrators, too, and not just Julius N. and Debbie C. Notwithstanding, no one took any action to exercise institutional control for 18 years. Something tells me that their response to SACS didn't take the position that the classes were generally known to the university at large for 18 years.

[devilsadvocate85]

If the fraudulent courses were widely known to the general student body despite no publication of them, they would have been known to many administrators, too, and not just Julius N. and Debbie C. Notwithstanding, no one took any action to exercise institutional control for 18 years. Something tells me that their response to SACS didn't take the position that the classes were generally known to the university at large for 18 years.

I'll contend that UNC is not guilty of Lack of Institutional Control. They exhibited incredible institutional control for almost 2 decades - concocting and managing the most creative and secretive scheme for keeping athletes eligible. The only problem was keeping it a secret became too much for even the Carolina Way to handle.

[devildeac]

Please forgive and forget if this has already been linked/posted discussed:

http://loathingbioethics.blogspot.com/2017/06/unc-discovers-new-way-to-squelch.html

Most amusing (pathetic?) part:

"Cunningham responded, and suggested that he teach the course, “thus saving the university a sizable amount of money and you a lot of time.” “Given that I have a MBA and 20 years of relevant, practical experience in inter-collegiate athletics I believe I would be better suited to teach this class,” Cunningham wrote."

What a fracking, arrogant PoS.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

What a fracking, arrogant PoS.
DD, that's mean and uncalled for. You owe fracking arrogant PoS's everywhere an apology.

[devildeac]

DD, that's mean and uncalled for. You owe fracking arrogant PoS's everywhere an apology.

I guess you're correct:o. Blanket apology issued. Those lying, conniving, obfuscating depositories of detritus are in a class by themselves. It won't happen again ;).

[camion]

I just had to to interject here.

My other school, Davidson, has just knocked UNC out of the NCAA baseball tournament. :)

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I guess you're correct:o. Blanket apology issued. Those lying, conniving, obfuscating depositories of detritus are in a class by themselves. It won't happen again ;).
Much better.

[OldPhiKap]

I just had to to interject here.

My other school, Davidson, has just knocked UNC out of the NCAA baseball tournament. :)

"Today, we are all Davidsonians"

Congrats! Double good for you.

[YmoBeThere]

I just had to to interject here.

My other school, Davidson, has just knocked UNC out of the NCAA baseball tournament. :)

Between that and Steph and the Warriors, today is a good day to be a Wildcat.

[DukieInKansas]

I just had to to interject here.

My other school, Davidson, has just knocked UNC out of the NCAA baseball tournament. :)

Did I hear correctly that Davidson only has 3 scholarship players on the team? I'm going to assume that unc has closer to the 11.7 scholarships that are allowed.

[aimo]

Did I hear correctly that Davidson only has 3 scholarship players on the team? I'm going to assume that unc has closer to the 11.7 scholarships that are allowed.

The commentators of another game (the only one televised around here) were saying that Davidson winning was the equivalent of a #14 seed in the NCAA basketball tourney winning. And, of course, all we were hearing around here (Triangle) was that the holes were the #2 seed and all ready to win it all! Makes me smile even more.

[Olympic Fan]

Did I hear correctly that Davidson only has 3 scholarship players on the team? I'm going to assume that unc has closer to the 11.7 scholarships that are allowed.

North Carolina was the NATIONAL No. 2 seed and was playing at home. Davidson, the No. 4 seed in the regional beat them twice head-to-head to eliminate the Cheats from the NCAA Tournament.

[tteettimes]

north carolina was the national no. 2 seed and was playing at home. Davidson, the no. 4 seed in the regional beat them twice head-to-head to eliminate the cheats from the ncaa tournament.

aaawwwwwewwwwww 😅😅😅😅😝😅

[TruBlu]

Did I hear correctly that Davidson only has 3 scholarship players on the team? I'm going to assume that unc has closer to the 11.7 scholarships that are allowed.

And I'm sure the Davidson scholarship players go to actual classes and are true student athletes.

By the way, we need to come up with a different name for "scholarship" for the cheaters.

Such as: "Free ride* for a fake diploma".

* See what I did there to reference Fats?!?

[tteettimes]

Meanwhile-----back at the ranch

[PackMan97]

North Carolina was the NATIONAL No. 2 seed and was playing at home. Davidson, the No. 4 seed in the regional beat them twice head-to-head to eliminate the Cheats from the NCAA Tournament.

It is amazing how shortly after the scandal dropped, Carolina Baseball missed then NCAAT three times in a row (after 13 straight appearances).

When you look at the dip in success at Carolina during the middle part of this decade, it becomes painfully clear that cheating at sports was the purpose of the academic scandal. Either poor students were kept eligible, or elite athletes were given more time to work on getting better at their sport.

The dip really hit Carolina Women's soccer hard as well, starting in 2009, when Crowder retired. One of the scams they used was fake courses in the off-season to allow the Tarheel players to travel with the national team without having to do any serious work, but stay enrolled fulltime. Of all the slimey allegations against Anson Dorrance, it's amazing that it took an academic scandal to bring the Lady Cheaters down to earth.

[Tom B.]

North Carolina was the NATIONAL No. 2 seed and was playing at home. Davidson, the No. 4 seed in the regional beat them twice head-to-head to eliminate the Cheats from the NCAA Tournament.

The Cheats are whining about two close calls on the last two outs of the game, but they both looked like good calls to me. See the embedded tweets in this link for videos of the two plays in question:

http://www.ncaa.com/news/baseball/article/2017-06-05/college-baseball-davidson-continues-amazing-run-beats-north

The Heel first base coach really made an arse of himself with his conniption on the final out.

[Tom B.]

Davidson has already released a highlight/hype video to commemorate its big win.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctm2TUNHxGs

[swood1000]

It's evident that a strategic objective of UNC and its attorneys is to confine the focus of the "special benefits" inquiry to the sole issue of whether students other than athletes had access to the paper courses. But it seems to me that the critical question is not, or at least should not be, so narrowly limited, because the potential benefits do not end with mere access. Even if UNC can prove that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students -- putting aside for the moment the question of whether courses can be regarded as "available" when their existence is not published in the official catalog or through some other medium that would ordinarily be expected to convey notice and pertinent information to the general student population -- isn't there evidence that UNC athletes enjoyed other "special benefits" with respect to those courses that were not extended to regular students? For example, were non-athletes allowed to enroll in these courses after the normal registration closed, as athletes were apparently permitted to do? Were non-athletes required to attend classes, take tests, or satisfy other obligations from which athletes were routinely exempted? And most tellingly, was the coursework of the non-athletes graded by a secretary or other staff member not qualified to teach the course? If there is in fact sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that only the athletes were provided such differential treatment, then why wouldn't that support a finding of "special benefits" warranting the imposition of sanctions, notwithstanding any proof by UNC that the paper classes were generally available to all students?
I’m not aware that non-athletes were required to attend classes or take tests that athletes were not required to do. As far as I know, Crowder graded the coursework of athletes and non-athletes alike. Allegation 1b talks about the types of “special arrangements” that you mention, being:
 
· requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes,

· contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses even after the deadline to enroll had passed

· obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes,

· suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete,

· submitting papers on behalf of student-athletes and

· recommending grades

· The high level of involvement by athletics academic counselors in the administration of these anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses relieved student-athletes of the academic responsibilities of a general student.
 
UNC, in their response to NOA-3, denies that any of the described activities are prohibited by NCAA Bylaws. It is interesting that Boxill’s termination letter (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B24WwCUVnfYtVXlVVmpBQWhjdnM/view) listed some of these activities as “acts of misconduct” and "profoundly flawed and unethical," justifying her termination.

But I’m not clear whether the enforcement staff is charging that these activities are extra benefits even when they pertain to regular classes, or only when they amount to a way of giving enhanced access to paper classes. Things like “recommending grades” seem suspect no matter what, while “obtaining assignments” appears less so.

Allegation 1b says: “This involvement by athletics in the management of anomalous courses on behalf of student-athletes led student-athletes to avail themselves of the courses at a rate disproportionately higher than the general student body.”

UNC claims that “However, a proportional use requirement simply does not exist in the applicable NCAA legislation.” It claims that in fact there is nothing wrong with a class containing only athletes, and that other universities have these. UNC is avoiding the point that disproportionality in the case of an extra benefit can show that the benefit was not equally available to non-athletes. Legitimate classes, even if attended only by athletes, are not extra benefits.

[swood1000]

With respect to extra benefits, UNC has to show that the paper classes were "generally available" to all students.

UNC claims that student-athletes, 4% of the student body, made up only 30% of the enrollments in paper classes (not Wainstein’s 47.6%). They claim that it is unreasonable to say that the classes were not “generally available” when 70% of the enrollments were not athletes. It seems to me that UNC loses under either 30% or 47.6%.

Suppose the institution were distributing gift cards worth $100 each to the students, and their distribution method resulted in athletes receiving 30% of the cards even though they were only 4% of the student population. Would it be said that this benefit was “generally available” or would it be said that athletes had preferred access?

[Channing]

UNC claims that student-athletes, 4% of the student body, made up only 30% of the enrollments in paper classes (not Wainstein’s 47.6%). They claim that it is unreasonable to say that the classes were not “generally available” when 70% of the enrollments were not athletes. It seems to me that UNC loses under either 30% or 47.6%.

Suppose the institution were distributing gift cards worth $100 each to the students, and their distribution method resulted in athletes receiving 30% of the cards even though they were only 4% of the student population. Would it be said that this benefit was “generally available” or would it be said that athletes had preferred access?

Playing devils advocate, could it not be said that African American (which, at least in revenue sports, constitutes the majority of alleged AFAM participants, students have a greater interest in AAFM studies? I'm not sure how the math would work, but should some sort of adjustment be made??

[swood1000]

Playing devils advocate, could it not be said that African American (which, at least in revenue sports, constitutes the majority of alleged AFAM participants, students have a greater interest in AAFM studies? I'm not sure how the math would work, but should some sort of adjustment be made??

The Wainstein Report said “We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses.” The 'greater interest' seemed to be in paper classes.

Playing devil's advocate again, though, it could be argued that only weak students are interested in this type of class, and that one wouldn't be finding the serious pre-med or heavy-duty engineering students in these classes. Therefore, the athletes (most not admitted on the strength of their academics), while 4% of the student body, are a much larger percentage of the total number of weak students on campus.

The problem with this is that many people took these classes to fulfill undergraduate curriculum requirements that required students to take classes within a certain number of different curriculum areas or “Perspectives.” So the engineering major, knowing that he had to take a certain number of classes outside his major, and not expecting to get anything out of such classes in any event, would want to get them over with as quickly and by wasting as little energy as possible.

[Indoor66]

The Wainstein Report said “We found that student-athletes accounted for 48% of all enrollments in the irregular classes, but only 8.3% of the enrollments in the regular AFAM courses.” The 'greater interest' seemed to be in paper classes.

Playing devil's advocate again, though, it could be argued that only weak students are interested in this type of class, and that one wouldn't be finding the serious pre-med or heavy-duty engineering students in these classes. Therefore, the athletes (most not admitted on the strength of their academics), while 4% of the student body, are a much larger percentage of the total number of weak students on campus.

The problem with this is that many people took these classes to fulfill undergraduate curriculum requirements that required students to take classes within a certain number of different curriculum areas or “Perspectives.” So the engineering major, knowing that he had to take a certain number of classes outside his major, and not expecting to get anything out of such classes in any event, would want to get them over with as quickly and by wasting as little energy as possible.

You make an argument that is looking for an issue.

[Olympic Fan]

My question is why it matters whether the phony courses were generally available or not?

The NCAA has consistently punished schools for irregular classes that were available to non-athletes -- most significantly in the 2009 FSU case, where one phony course (open to athletes and non-athletes) resulted in four years of probation, athletic suspension of 61 athletes in 10 sports and the vacating of wins in those 10 sports, including 14 football victories.

“Academic fraud is among the most egregious of N.C.A.A. violations,” the NCAA's report said. “The committee was concerned with the large number of student-athletes involved in the fraud and especially by the fact that individuals within the institution’s A.A.S.S. unit were involved. The committee was further troubled by the fact that there were warning signs indicating that academic improprieties were taking place, but these warning signs were, for the most part, ignored.”

UNC's academic scandal involved more than 1600 athletes over 18 years (as detailed by Wainstein).

I just don't understand why it matters whether athletes made up 30 percent or 47 percent of the students in the phony classes. If an athlete is eligible because of a phony class, then that athlete is actually ineligible. Period.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My question is why it matters whether the phony courses were generally available or not?

The NCAA has consistently punished schools for irregular classes that were available to non-athletes -- most significantly in the 2009 FSU case, where one phony course (open to athletes and non-athletes) resulted in four years of probation, athletic suspension of 61 athletes in 10 sports and the vacating of wins in those 10 sports, including 14 football victories.

“Academic fraud is among the most egregious of N.C.A.A. violations,” the NCAA's report said. “The committee was concerned with the large number of student-athletes involved in the fraud and especially by the fact that individuals within the institution’s A.A.S.S. unit were involved. The committee was further troubled by the fact that there were warning signs indicating that academic improprieties were taking place, but these warning signs were, for the most part, ignored.”

UNC's academic scandal involved more than 1600 athletes over 18 years (as detailed by Wainstein).

I just don't understand why it matters whether athletes made up 30 percent or 47 percent of the students in the phony classes. If an athlete is eligible because of a phony class, then that athlete is actually ineligible. Period.

It does seem like a really dumb way to skirt the rules. I mean, if that's all it takes, then hey, have a handful of open classes that are known to be shams. Then give athletes priority for scheduling.

Viola! Academic eligibility for all!

It doesn't pass the straight-face test.

[swood1000]

My question is why it matters whether the phony courses were generally available or not?

The NCAA has consistently punished schools for irregular classes that were available to non-athletes -- most significantly in the 2009 FSU case, where one phony course (open to athletes and non-athletes) resulted in four years of probation, athletic suspension of 61 athletes in 10 sports and the vacating of wins in those 10 sports, including 14 football victories.

“Academic fraud is among the most egregious of N.C.A.A. violations,” the NCAA's report said. “The committee was concerned with the large number of student-athletes involved in the fraud and especially by the fact that individuals within the institution’s A.A.S.S. unit were involved. The committee was further troubled by the fact that there were warning signs indicating that academic improprieties were taking place, but these warning signs were, for the most part, ignored.”

UNC's academic scandal involved more than 1600 athletes over 18 years (as detailed by Wainstein).

I just don't understand why it matters whether athletes made up 30 percent or 47 percent of the students in the phony classes. If an athlete is eligible because of a phony class, then that athlete is actually ineligible. Period.

This is what we were all expecting prior to NOA-1, but then were disappointed when they went with extra benefits instead, which brought with it the issue of whether the benefit was generally available. My assumption is that they didn't go with academic fraud because of statements in the Wainstein Report like this:


These students largely fell into two groups – the accidental paper class student who enrolled expecting a regular class and the student who enrolled specifically because it was a paper class. We spoke to several students of the first group who explained that they signed up for a paper class out of interest in the stated class topic, were surprised when they learned that the supposed lecture class never actually met, and gave a genuine effort to write a solid paper to earn a good grade. This was the distinct minority of students who took these classes. … As we said above, however, the fact that a student or student-athlete was in a paper class does not necessarily mean that he or she did little work or received a grade that was not deserved. We learned of numerous instances where students and student-athletes diligently worked on their papers and turned in a product that deserved a strong grade. … For example, the Experts’ report of their analysis of student papers (attached at Exhibit 35 and discussed in Section V.A.5.c, infra) refers to a paper they reviewed that was “excellent . . . thoroughly researched, well organized and carefully written [and] could have easily been written by an advanced undergraduate committed to doing some scholarly research.”

If athlete A was one of those who turned in a product that deserved a strong grade it would be difficult to argue to the COI that athlete A perpetrated academic fraud and so all wins he participated in thereafter should be vacated. If a person’s instructor (authorized by the department chair) was unqualified yet the student put in a strong effort is he guilty of academic fraud? If not, then the enforcement staff has to prove utter lack of effort on an individual basis. Perhaps the enforcement staff felt uneasy going to the COI and asking them to assume utter lack of effort unless proved otherwise, given that Wainstein reported some for whom this was not true, and given that each student had to submit a paper that included appropriate citations and a proper bibliography, and that met the page-length requirements.

There is a similar issue with extra benefits – if an athlete put in a strong effort was there a benefit? It seems to me that a person receives a benefit if he only has to do minimal work and can’t get a low grade, even if he puts in more than minimal work and earns a high grade, in the same way that a safety net is a benefit for the trapeze artist.

[YmoBeThere]

Okay, the news to me in all this is that there are engineering students at UNC. I know it was just an example, but when I was in school(early '90s) there were no engineering offered in Chapel Hill.

[BD80]

Okay, the news to me in all this is that there are engineering students at UNC. I know it was just an example, but when I was in school(early '90s) there were no engineering offered in Chapel Hill.

Engineering is the degree unc athletes get for playing with choo-choos.

[devildeac]

Engineering is the degree unc athletes get for playing with choo-choos.

Not a bad answer, but incorrect;). Engineering is what they did for ~23 years to orchestrate the vast scheme. :mad: