UNC Athletics Scandal: NCAA response

[UrinalCake]

The NCAA's response has been released by UNC.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/university-releases-ncaa-correspondence-cited-in-public-records-requests/

[OldPhiKap]

I don't know what this means, but there's no way that's a good sign for the CHeats.

I dunno. Maybe they just want to tell them in person what a great job they've done, keeping their programs clean and all. You know, a laurel and a hearty handshake kind of thing.

[grad_devil]

The NCAA's response has been released by UNC.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/university-releases-ncaa-correspondence-cited-in-public-records-requests/

Wow. Initial reading of this (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/07/NCAA-Enforcement-Reply-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-07-17-2017.pdf) document looks encouraging.

[UrinalCake]

^ yeah, I have only skimmed it briefly but it sounds like they are calling UNC out on all their BS and refuting the school's attempts at getting various charges thrown out.

[thedukelamere]

"It is standard practice for the current head coaches of programs referenced in a notice of allegations to attend."

But but but but but I thought the basketball team wasn't referenced?!!

This is the best Wine and Cheese Day I can remember. :cool:

[chrishoke]

"The issues at the heart of this case are clearly the NCAA's business. When a member institution
allows an academic department to provide benefits to student-athletes that are materially different from
the general student body, it is the NCAA's business. When athletics academic counselors exploit
"special arrangement" classes for student-athletes in ways unintended by and contrary to the bylaws,
it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution provides student-athletes an inside track to enroll
in unpublicized courses where grades of As and Bs are the norm,1 it is the NCAA's business. When a
member institution uses "special arrangement" courses to keep a significant number of student-athletes
eligible, it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution fails or refuses to take action after
receiving actual notice of problems involving student-athletes, thereby allowing violations to
compound and to continue for years, it is the NCAA's business. In sum, it is an NCAA matter when
other member schools who choose not to provide impermissible benefits are disadvantaged by their
commitment to compliance."

Exactly!

[grad_devil]

this is what makes me sick...


"Carolina lawyers point out that similar "paper courses" at Michigan and Auburn did not draw penalties. Furthermore, they claim the statute of limitations for a Letter of Inquiry goes back just four years (to 2010), thus keeping the 2005 basketball triumph (over Illinois) out of reach."

From the NCAA response of 07/17/2017 (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/07/NCAA-Enforcement-Reply-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-07-17-2017.pdf) (p.19)

The institution also discusses the applicability of Bylaw 10.01.1, the use of "student-athlete" courses by other institutions and matters purportedly involving the University of Michigan and Auburn University. The enforcement staff believes all of these issues are without merit and do not warrant a discussion in its written reply. The enforcement staff is, however, prepared to discuss these issues at the hearing if the panel desires.

[OldPhiKap]

"The issues at the heart of this case are clearly the NCAA's business. When a member institution
allows an academic department to provide benefits to student-athletes that are materially different from
the general student body, it is the NCAA's business. When athletics academic counselors exploit
"special arrangement" classes for student-athletes in ways unintended by and contrary to the bylaws,
it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution provides student-athletes an inside track to enroll
in unpublicized courses where grades of As and Bs are the norm,1 it is the NCAA's business. When a
member institution uses "special arrangement" courses to keep a significant number of student-athletes
eligible, it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution fails or refuses to take action after
receiving actual notice of problems involving student-athletes, thereby allowing violations to
compound and to continue for years, it is the NCAA's business. In sum, it is an NCAA matter when
other member schools who choose not to provide impermissible benefits are disadvantaged by their
commitment to compliance."

Exactly!

Righteous indignation is one of my favorite closing motifs at trial. That is very well-played.

[wsb3]

"It is standard practice for the current head coaches of programs referenced in a notice of allegations to attend."

But but but but but I thought the basketball team wasn't referenced?!!

Huck is there for moral support & to make sure Sylvia is properly thrown under the bus........& backed over & over & over...;)

[wsb3]

"The issues at the heart of this case are clearly the NCAA's business. When a member institution
allows an academic department to provide benefits to student-athletes that are materially different from
the general student body, it is the NCAA's business. When athletics academic counselors exploit
"special arrangement" classes for student-athletes in ways unintended by and contrary to the bylaws,
it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution provides student-athletes an inside track to enroll
in unpublicized courses where grades of As and Bs are the norm,1 it is the NCAA's business. When a
member institution uses "special arrangement" courses to keep a significant number of student-athletes
eligible, it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution fails or refuses to take action after
receiving actual notice of problems involving student-athletes, thereby allowing violations to
compound and to continue for years, it is the NCAA's business. In sum, it is an NCAA matter when
other member schools who choose not to provide impermissible benefits are disadvantaged by their
commitment to compliance."

Exactly!

I kept hoping that the behavior of UNC would eventually push the NCAA to a point where they became angry..I think that might just be the case..

[Indoor66]

BaddaBing, BaddaBoom.

The Hammer of Thor is about to fall at the Dump on the Hump and they will never put Humpty Dumpty together again after the Noze Dome is imploded.

(I never mix metaphors!)

[thedukelamere]

"The benefits here are not at all similar to the permissible supports identified by member schools in Bylaw 16. On the contrary, the
access and assistance provided by the institution here do not help "maximize the academic
performances of student-athletes."51 Rather, they alleviated the academic responsibilities for students
that help them develop both as learners and adults. Instead of supporting academic and long-term
success of student-athletes, they cut against this core principle of the Association. p. 16

[devildeac]

Tweet from Jeff Gravley @ WRAL, retweeted by Arowe:

"Roy Williams, Larry Fedora, Sylvia Hatchell are requested to attend NCAA hearings with Committee on Infractions Aug. 16"

Arowe's tag-on: "Not a basketball issue" ;-)

WTH?

I thought MBB and FB were NOT mentioned :rolleyes:.

Does Sylvia get to show up with her own, personal bus driver? :rolleyes:

[dudog84]

The NCAA's response has been released by UNC.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/university-releases-ncaa-correspondence-cited-in-public-records-requests/

I only read the first few pages of each (anyone have Cliffs notes?), and have never read any other NCAA proceedings with other universities so have nothing to compare, but it appears that the NCAA is severely P*ssed Off.

uNC may have overplayed their hand. It was crappy to begin with, so maybe the big bluff was their only chance. In poker, the big bluff will only lose you what you choose to put in the pot. uNC won't be so fortunate.

[moonpie23]

7545


the time has come.....

[BigWayne]

Wow. Initial reading of this (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/07/NCAA-Enforcement-Reply-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-07-17-2017.pdf) document looks encouraging.

If you don't want to waste a bunch of time trying to figure out what will happen next, just read pages 2 and 3 of this document. It's pretty clear the COI and the enforcement staff have packed their bag of hammers for this upcoming meeting.

[thedukelamere]

This hearing will take place in Cheekwood ABC meeting rooms at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, 2800 Opryland
Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37214. The panel has set aside two full days for this hearing.
NCAA infractions hearings are closed to the public, and the information discussed during
these hearings is considered confidential, as is the date, time and location of the hearing.

I'm confused as to whether or not we should know when and where this is taking place on the 16th... Sounds like it should have been redacted before being published? Or am I reading that last sentence wrong?

[swood1000]

I only read the first few pages of each (anyone have Cliffs notes?), and have never read any other NCAA proceedings with other universities so have nothing to compare, but it appears that the NCAA is severely P*ssed Off.

uNC may have overplayed their hand. It was crappy to begin with, so maybe the big bluff was their only chance. In poker, the big bluff will only lose you what you choose to put in the pot. uNC won't be so fortunate.

Cliffs notes version of the enforcement staff's case for extra benefits:


The issues at the heart of this case are clearly the NCAA's business. When a member institution allows an academic department to provide benefits to student-athletes that are materially different from the general student body, it is the NCAA's business. When athletics academic counselors exploit "special arrangement" classes for student-athletes in ways unintended by and contrary to the bylaws, it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution provides student-athletes an inside track to enroll in unpublicized courses where grades of As and Bs are the norm, it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution uses "special arrangement" courses to keep a significant number of student-athletes eligible, it is the NCAA's business. When a member institution fails or refuses to take action after receiving actual notice of problems involving student-athletes, thereby allowing violations to compound and to continue for years, it is the NCAA's business. In sum, it is an NCAA matter when other member schools who choose not to provide impermissible benefits are disadvantaged by their commitment to compliance. …

Rather, the institution argues that the same arrangements were generally available to other students. The argument is incorrect and mischaracterizes the clear statements of numerous individuals with personal knowledge of the special arrangements. …

Crowder and the AFRI/AFAM department began offering anomalous or "special arrangement" courses in 1999. These were closed enrollment classes where Crowder had almost exclusive enrollment authority. They were not published as options in the student catalog and they were not advertised in the institution's schedule of classes. …

Because the institution did not make them known or generally available, students could only learn about these "special arrangement" courses through arts and sciences advisors, word of mouth, Crowder herself or athletics academic counselors. They were not listed with other courses and a student needed one of these limited connections to learn of the classes. Unlike other courses that were published, advertised and officially made known by the institution, these were open only to a select group with inside knowledge and were not generally available to the student body. …

However, the dramatically high student-athlete enrollment is a clear manifestation and illustration of the extra benefit of preferential access. The proportionally small universe of student-athletes could not have enrolled in such high numbers absent the preferential access Crowder provided them through her relationship with ASPSA. …

There is no information in the record suggesting that [Crowder] made similar "group enrollment" accommodations for any other segment of campus. …

Rather, Crowder stated that she made "special arrangements" for student-athletes because classes sometimes impacted a student-athlete's practice time.

Although other arts and sciences advisors were generally aware of the availability of "special arrangements," the athletics academic counselors in ASPSA knew Crowder and Nyang'oro and had an inside track to learn about these unpublicized courses and to enroll student-athletes in them. …As a result, athletics academic counselors leveraged these relationships to benefit student-athletes in ways not available to the general student body. …

As a result, over the course of nearly a decade, student-athletes were enrolled in "special arrangement" classes at a rate 10 times greater than their representation in the student body, at a minimum, and as high as a one-to-one ratio with their general student colleagues. …

Primarily, athletics academic counselors used these courses to help maintain NCAA eligibility for student-athletes who were at risk academically. This, along with other benefits, such as the ability to control and monitor the administration of these courses, meant that student-athletes did not need to attend class or meet with AFRI/AFAM faculty or staff. …

The preferential access to the "special arrangement" courses and the corresponding course assistance provided the institution a competitive advantage because it allowed the institution to admit a significant number of student-athletes who were at risk. …

[BigWayne]

This hearing will take place in Cheekwood ABC meeting rooms at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, 2800 Opryland
Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37214. The panel has set aside two full days for this hearing.
NCAA infractions hearings are closed to the public, and the information discussed during
these hearings is considered confidential, as is the date, time and location of the hearing.

I'm confused as to whether or not we should know when and where this is taking place on the 16th... Sounds like it should have been redacted before being published? Or am I reading that last sentence wrong?

Probably just another sad attempt to get a delay introduced while they identify a new secret location.

[Indoor66]

We are not UnCheat. Read the damned response. It is quite enlightening!

[devildeac]

I dunno. Maybe they just want to tell them in person what a great job they've done, keeping their programs clean and all. You know, a laurel and a hearty handshake kind of thing.

Abbot and Costello can appear, too, along with a couple other Marx.

[PackMan97]

"In fact, as noted below, the ASPSA counselors instead viewed these courses as options where student-athletes did not have to attend class, stay awake and take notes, meet with professors, turn in their work or even pay attention.

Even Crowder herself was uneasy about how these courses were used for student-athletes. When asked to enroll a student-athlete in a course section alone, without any other students, she mentioned that it "raised too many red flags." Further, when asked for a favor by an athletics academic counselor, she mentioned that she could not do it because, "we have a little academic credibility to uphold.""

Game.
Set.
Match.

I know Thor: Ragnorok is coming out this fall in where Hela destroys Mjilnor...but the release date is not until Nov...long after the Hammre of Thor will fall upon the Tarheels.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

For anyone who might have been worried that the NCAA staff was not paying attention to all the evidence and connecting the dots, you can put those concerns to rest. They specifically referenced a variety of commonly cited emails and other evidence. For example...

-- Referencing the infamous PowerPoint slide: In fact, as noted below, the ASPSA counselors instead viewed these courses as options where student-athletes did not have to attend class, stay awake and take notes, meet with professors, turn in their work or even pay attention to the material.

-- Referencing Crowder emails: Even Crowder herself was uneasy about how these courses were used for student-athletes. When asked to enroll a student-athlete in a course section alone, without any other students, she mentioned that it "raised too many red flags." Further, when asked for a favor by an athletics academic counselor, she mentioned that she could not do it because, "we have a little academic credibility to uphold.
​
The NCAA appears to have acquired the Hammer of Thor.

EDIT: I was so busy reading and copying in juicy tidbits that I missed Packman posting the same two quotes 8 minutes earlier!!!

[devildeac]

7545


the time has come....

Wait, I thought they were gonna skate...

:rolleyes:

(They still might but reading some of the Enforcement Committee's response and the posts here, there may indeed be some heavy hammerin' a'comin...)

[devildeac]

7545


the time has come...

Are you referring to this?

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

Had to put one in moonpie's world of expertise ;).

[thedukelamere]

Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case
presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a
population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations
unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's
records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The
enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the
enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of
the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put
simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each
instance or each student-athlete who benefited.

This makes me a bit nervous r/e the banners coming down... I would have felt a lot better with the typical "here is the list of your ineligible athletes, please tell us which wins we need to vacate for you."

[dudog84]

Cliffs notes version of the enforcement staff's case for extra benefits:

Thanks very much for that. I'm too old to have been diagnosed with ADD but I don't have the patience to read all of it.

From your many posts you seem to have a great handle on the details and NCAA rules. Have you also read other NCAA/university interactions? (Syracuse, Louisville, etc.) Is their tone always like this?

[swood1000]

Wainstein had said that 47.4 percent of enrollees in the paper classes were student-athletes. In its response, UNC claimed that the number was actually 26.3 percent. The enforcement staff said that while they dispute UNC’s method of calculation, the lower percentage is immaterial since it is uncontroverted that student-athletes constituted only 3 percent of the student body population and either number shows a disproportionately high number of student-athletes enrolled in the courses, which could not have happened without preferential access.

[swood1000]

Thanks very much for that. I'm too old to have been diagnosed with ADD but I don't have the patience to read all of it.

From your many posts you seem to have a great handle on the details and NCAA rules. Have you also read other NCAA/university interactions? (Syracuse, Louisville, etc.) Is their tone always like this?
The tone seems a bit more strident than usual, but in the normal case the institution is not claiming with injured dignity that it is the victim of a grevious miscarriage of justice, and is innocent of all but the most minor of the charges.

[Pghdukie]

I'm just preparing myself for another paper dump. It's just the Cheats way.

[swood1000]

Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case
presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a
population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations
unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's
records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The
enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the
enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of
the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put
simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each
instance or each student-athlete who benefited.

This makes me a bit nervous r/e the banners coming down... I would have felt a lot better with the typical "here is the list of your ineligible athletes, please tell us which wins we need to vacate for you."

I had the same thought when reading that, but they're not saying that no specific student-athletes have been mentioned, and they only need one or two to wipe out entire seasons and championships. I think they're just making the argument that this thing was worse than the sum of the individual student-athletes mentioned (in the redacted parts of various documents) because the absence of personally identifying information in the institution's records kept them from being able to cite all instances of misconduct.

[swood1000]

It was also pointed out that UNC or their allies repeatedly broke the rules, knowing that they wouldn’t get called on it, for to do so would require yet another NOA and consequent delay. The enforcement staff said that Crowder’s attorney made public disclosures to Inside Carolina in violation of the Bylaws, and that Bubba Cunningham made public statements to CBS concerning the merits of the case and the potential bias of the COI chairman, also in violation of the Bylaws, but the enforcement staff said they decided not to issue an amended NOA.

The letter from Greg Sankey also stated that COI Internal Operating Procedures limit responses to 50 pages but UNC’s response was approximately 2,500 pages, 2,400 of which were attachments. But the COI accepted it in order to keep on schedule.

[-jk]

Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case
presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a
population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations
unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's
records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The
enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the
enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of
the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put
simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each
instance or each student-athlete who benefited.

This makes me a bit nervous r/e the banners coming down... I would have felt a lot better with the typical "here is the list of your ineligible athletes, please tell us which wins we need to vacate for you."

They're gonna skate...

-jk

[swood1000]

In their argument for Lack of Institutional Control the enforcement staff pointed out that the former director of compliance had actual knowledge of these classes but did not follow up or take any action.


The compliance staff did, however, have actual knowledge of the "special arrangement" courses. In an email between Brent Blanton, athletics academic counselor, and Amy Hermann (Hermann), former director of compliance, Hermann refers to the "infamous paper classes." Nowhere does the record indicate any follow up by the compliance staff concerning the "special arrangement courses," Boxill's relationship with women's basketball student-athletes or ASPSA's close relationship with the AFRI/AFAM department.

[swood1000]

They're gonna skate...

-jk
They skate only if the enforcement staff cannot list any MBB player who received an extra benefit. But how about these emails:
 
FI118: January 5, 2005 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder discussing men's basketball student-athletes and the courses to which she added them.
(Item2_CrowderToWalden_010505_NorthCarolina_00231)

FI159: August 4, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden thanking Crowder for enrolling student-athletes in a course. (Item4_WaldenToCrowder_2of2_080408_NorthCarolina_0 0231)

FI160: August 26, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an AFAM course. (Item4_WaldenToCrowder_082608_NorthCarolina_00231)
 
If you think they skate you need to explain why the COI didn't just let them skate on NOA-2, and why the COI would insist on allegations of extra benefits only to ignore them.

[aimo]

But but but but but I thought the basketball team wasn't referenced?!!:

That is EXACTLY what I was going to say!

[cspan37421]

In their argument for Lack of Institutional Control the enforcement staff pointed out that the former director of compliance had actual knowledge of these classes but did not follow up or take any action.

Not to throw a wet blanket on things, but consider what university subsequently hired Amy Hermann.

And V. Ashby, of UNC's well-connected, let's move along, nothing to see here, chemistry dept.

At least Holden Thorp and his s--- eating grin (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/1cvgc2/picture28708348/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/MARTIN-01) went to WUSTL.

[swood1000]

Not to throw a wet blanket on things, but consider what university subsequently hired Amy Hermann.

And V. Ashby, of UNC's well-connected, let's move along, nothing to see here, chemistry dept.

At least Holden Thorp and his s--- eating grin (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/1cvgc2/picture28708348/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/MARTIN-01) went to WUSTL.
I don't think that hiring an incompetent compliance staff is going to rouse much sympathy from the COI panel.

[BigWayne]

Not to throw a wet blanket on things, but consider what university subsequently hired Amy Hermann.

And V. Ashby, of UNC's well-connected, let's move along, nothing to see here, chemistry dept.

At least Holden Thorp and his s--- eating grin (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/1cvgc2/picture28708348/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/MARTIN-01) went to WUSTL.

I am hopeful that Duke's administration would not condone the environment these two were involved in down the road in cheatville.
If they do, they won't have me as a fan any longer.

[UrinalCake]

This hearing will take place in Cheekwood ABC meeting rooms at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center



That is absolutely the perfect location for this meeting to take place. ABC, baby!

[BLPOG]

I don't think that hiring an incompetent compliance staff is going to rouse much sympathy from the COI panel.

I believe what he was getting at is that Duke hired Hermann and Ashby and we should be upset at that.

I have given an earful to every unfortunate undergrad who has called me for donations during the last few years, excoriating them both and explaining to the caller at length while I should not donate a cent to the school while those two are employed. I still do donate once I've worked out a bit of frustration, but I insist that the money only go to the engineering school.

[arnie]

They skate only if the enforcement staff cannot list any MBB player who received an extra benefit. But how about these emails:
 
FI118: January 5, 2005 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder discussing men's basketball student-athletes and the courses to which she added them.
(Item2_CrowderToWalden_010505_NorthCarolina_00231)

FI159: August 4, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden thanking Crowder for enrolling student-athletes in a course. (Item4_WaldenToCrowder_2of2_080408_NorthCarolina_0 0231)

FI160: August 26, 2008 – Email from Walden to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Walden's request that Crowder add a student-athlete to an AFAM course. (Item4_WaldenToCrowder_082608_NorthCarolina_00231)
 
If you think they skate you need to explain why the COI didn't just let them skate on NOA-2, and why the COI would insist on allegations of extra benefits only to ignore them.

My definition of "skating" is a $50 fine, loss of 2 women's soccer or women's BBall scholarships, and Roy/Sylvia missing an exhibition game in 2020. Swofford will be interceding during the penalty phase and he'll surely keep NCAA at bay.

[BigWayne]

The NewsObserver let fanboy Andrew Carter write the first article. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article163524843.html)

He does the usual backflips to try to justify the UNC position and tries once again to make it out like the NCAA has been torturing the poor tarheels by delaying the conclusion of the case.

I expect they will have the Dan Kane version out later this week after he digs through all the new material.

[PackMan97]

For your enjoyment

http://scout.com/college/north-carolina/Board/102713/Contents/UNC-NCAA-Sparring-Over-Bylaw-Interpretation-105463549

[BLPOG]

For your enjoyment

http://scout.com/college/north-carolina/Board/102713/Contents/UNC-NCAA-Sparring-Over-Bylaw-Interpretation-105463549

Good Lord...the level of denial and self-delusion is staggering!

[LastRowFan]

The opening is marvelous:



It is important to be clear what this case is about. This case is about facts that are almost entirely undisputed. It is about straightforward application of those facts to well-known bylaws adopted by NCAA members. The bylaws at issue speak very clearly to benefits, which are and are not available to student-athletes, and to an institution's responsibility for controlling its athletics program. While the interests surrounding this case may be broad and complicated, the narrow issues before this hearing panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions are decidedly unique to the NCAA. Put simply, student-athletes received access to and assistance in certain courses that was not generally available to other students. The arrangements violated familiar NCAA bylaws and operated to the competitive disadvantage of other schools.
...

This is beautifully written -- to the point, punchy, and devastating. Bravo, NCAA staff.

[Duke79UNLV77]

The NewsObserver let fanboy Andrew Carter write the first article. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/unc-now/article163524843.html)

He does the usual backflips to try to justify the UNC position and tries once again to make it out like the NCAA has been torturing the poor tarheels by delaying the conclusion of the case.

I expect they will have the Dan Kane version out later this week after he digs through all the new material.

At least they didn't let fanboy Jay Bilas write the first article.

[cbarry]

At least they didn't let fanboy Jay Bilas write the first article.
Amen to that!

Looking forward to Dan Kane's take.

[Nugget]

Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case
presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a
population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations
unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's
records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The
enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the
enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of
the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put
simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each
instance or each student-athlete who benefited.

This makes me a bit nervous r/e the banners coming down... I would have felt a lot better with the typical "here is the list of your ineligible athletes, please tell us which wins we need to vacate for you."

I had a similar response upon reading this. I hope that it doesn't indicate they will "skate" due to the difficulty in fashioning a penalty, but we will obviously have to wait and see.

I am somewhat heartened in this respect by some of the other parts of the NCAA's submission that hammer the points that: (1) these classes were used in a scheme to help keep athletes eligible and (2) there was a serious lack of institutional control (both in the Compliance Dept. and in the Sr. Administration of the University:

“When a member institution uses 'special arrangement' courses to keep a significant number of student-athletes eligible, it is the NCAA's business.”

"Whatever name is assigned, there is no dispute that the courses were very different from other institutional offerings. It is also clear that administrators exploited them on behalf of student-athletes for eligibility purposes and other athletics advantages."

"….Primarily, athletics academic counselors used these courses to help maintain NCAA eligibility for student-athletes who were at risk academically.. … The preferential access to the 'special arrangement' courses and the corresponding course assistance provided the institution a competitive advantage because it allowed the institution to admit a significant number of student-athletes who were at risk."

"The athletics academic counselors within ASPSA turned to the AFRI/AFAM courses and exploited them to maintain the academic eligibility of student-athletes who struggled with the academic demands of the institution."

"Despite the concerns within athletics, neither campus officials, nor Dick Baddour … provided support or guidance to athletics on this issue. Ultimately, institutional leaders chose not to act. This allowed the problem not only to continue, but to worsen. … " and

"The compliance staff did, however, have actual knowledge of the "special arrangement" courses [and did nothing to follow up]."

If the NCAA COI goes with the staff in its findings on these issues, it would present a real dilemma on the banners -- but hopefully swood is right that a MBB player simply being in one of the classes during 2004-2005 or 2008-2009 would suffice as enough of an "impermissible benefit" to render them ineligible.

Also, I wonder if the COI could, without having to determine specific players were ineligible, cite the simple pervasiveness of the scheme (and the LOIC) as grounds to vacate the titles? Or, could those sorts of violations only be the basis for go-forward penalties (e.g., probation, scholarships, ban from the Tournament)?

[OldPhiKap]

Dean knew. Gut knew. Doh! Knew. Roy knew.

Fedora knew. Butch knew.

Sylvia knew.

Hell, Swofford knew.

Give the lying, cheating bastards the death penalty. This cesspool of an institution is an affront to decency and humanity. May the perpetrators of this egregious fraud rot and fester. May those who turned a blind eye wail and gnash their teeth in painful eternity. May karma kick those smug, self-righteous blowhards right in the cajones. Bigly.

Burn, you gravy-sucking swine.

[BD80]

If you don't want to waste a bunch of time trying to figure out what will happen next, just read pages 2 and 3 of this document. It's pretty clear the COI and the enforcement staff have packed their bag of hammers for this upcoming meeting.


https://youtu.be/1ZXHsNqkDI4

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a hammer.

I just don't see them dodging much of anything.

[cbarry]

https://youtu.be/1ZXHsNqkDI4

If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a hammer.

I just don't see them dodging much of anything.

The latest letter by the NCAA suggests they will drop the hammer. They almost HAVE to in order to remain relevant....

BUT... I've always had this nervousness that UNC-CHeat will skate without any meaningful punishments (i.e. losing natty banners), and I don't think I will feel relieved until the NCAA at least strips them of 2005 and 2009 (at the minimum!).

Something tells me that because UNC is the NCAA's cash cow, the NCAA will go relatively easy. Lots of harsh words, but no meaningful punishment, is my big fear.

[OldPhiKap]

The latest letter by the NCAA suggests they will drop the hammer. They almost HAVE to in order to remain relevant...

BUT... I've always had this nervousness that UNC-CHeat will skate without any meaningful punishments (i.e. losing natty banners), and I don't think I will feel relieved until the NCAA at least strips them of 2005 and 2009 (at the minimum!).

Something tells me that because UNC is the NCAA's cash cow, the NCAA will go relatively easy. Lots of harsh words, but no meaningful punishment, is my big fear.

Football is the NCAA cash cow, not basketball. The NCAA hammered USC, Notre Dame, FSU, and Miami in football.

If UNC skates (and I agree that they do if those banners stay up), it will be because UNC has better lawyers. Not for lack of desire.

[weezie]

...it sounds like they are calling UNC out on all their BS and refuting the school's attempts at getting various charges thrown out.

Fun, chewy stuff, "exhaustive procedural arguments, " as the holes frantically tried to throw sand into the eyes of the investigators. Imagine the sweat beads now...

Not a whole lot of mitigating points are there, eh?

[Atlanta Duke]

Something tells me that because UNC is the NCAA's cash cow, the NCAA will go relatively easy. Lots of harsh words, but no meaningful punishment, is my big fear.


Football is the NCAA cash cow, not basketball. The NCAA hammered USC, Notre Dame, FSU, and Miami in football.

If UNC skates (and I agree that they do if those banners stay up), it will be because UNC has better lawyers. Not for lack of desire.

UNC is mid-tier when it comes to revenue for public school athletic departments, ranked #33 for 2015-16 with revenues of $95 million. Texas A&M is #1 with $194 million in revenue and the other top 5 schools are football powers Texas, Ohio State, Alabama and Michigan, all with revenue over $160 million.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

UNC may bet the rap but not because it is too big to fail

[weezie]

For your enjoyment

http://scout.com/college/north-carolina/Board/102713/Contents/UNC-NCAA-Sparring-Over-Bylaw-Interpretation-105463549


The illiterate wankers wankering it up.

[MarkD83]

About this time last year I promised myself I would not visit the pack pride site. I do wonder what their reaction to this is

[OldPhiKap]

About this time last year I promised myself I would not visit the pack pride site. I do wonder what their reaction to this is

Manalishi no doubt called this six months ago.

[Kedsy]

...UNC is the NCAA's cash cow...

I've heard this so many times and it drives me crazy. I've examined various sources that explain how the NCAA makes its money, but I still don't see it. Please explain how UNC makes more money for the NCAA than any other Big 6 school?

[dudog84]

Not to throw a wet blanket on things, but consider what university subsequently hired Amy Hermann.

And V. Ashby, of UNC's well-connected, let's move along, nothing to see here, chemistry dept.

At least Holden Thorp and his s--- eating grin (http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/1cvgc2/picture28708348/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/MARTIN-01) went to WUSTL.

This is extremely disturbing. I knew about Ashby, who was Chair of the uNC Chemistry Department that sent out that ridiculous letter (I believe she signed it as well), and somehow was hired in 2015 as the Dean (DEAN!) of the Trinity College of Arts & Sciences.

Somehow I missed on Amy Herman. According to the Duke website, she was hired in July 2013 as Assistant Director of Compliance. She was at uNC from 2001 to 2012/13 as the Assistant and then promoted to Associate Director of Compliance. So she was there right in the meat of it. Duke's only possible excuse is that the Wainstein Report came out in October 2014. But I wonder if anyone that matters has gone back and looked at those employment interviews.

Well, some people don't want Coach P to get an extension. So maybe Sylvia has a future with us. (ducks and leaves the room)

[JasonEvans]

My favorite line (other than the wonderful graph already quoted by many that talks about why this "the NCAA business."):


this written reply will address the merits of serious allegations, rather than inflammatory
distractions or exhausted procedural arguments found in the institution's materials.

Put another way -- "Your lawyers are quite clever. Props to them, but we will not take that bait. We know where we have winning arguments and that is where this debate will stay."

[BigWayne]

My favorite line (other than the wonderful graph already quoted by many that talks about why this "the NCAA business."):



Put another way -- "Your lawyers are quite clever. Props to them, but we will not take that bait. We know where we have winning arguments and that is where this debate will stay."

This document is the first one I have seen where they stop I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. footing around and call UNC out for their BS. Better late than never.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The illiterate wankers wankering it up.

Yeah the level of discourse is representative of their scandal.

[OldPhiKap]

Although it was referenced before, my favorite part is actually from the UCC press release:


“The NCAA has requested certain individuals from the University attend the proceedings. It is standard practice for the current head coaches of programs referenced in a notice of allegations to attend. Therefore, Coaches Larry Fedora (football), Sylvia Hatchell (women’s basketball) and Roy Williams (men’s basketball) will accompany University representatives to the hearing.”

Heh. Wonder if they will testify.

[BD80]

Although it was referenced before, my favorite part is actually from the UCC press release:



Heh. Wonder if they will testify.

That conjures up an amusing image in my mind. The enforcement staff is detailing the absolute lack of institutional control, and how the scheme benefitted the various programs, including men's basketball, by allowing players to easily maintain eligibility. ol' roy reaches his breaking point and begins to stand up to set them straight, and three University lawyers immediately tackle him, stuffing his ugly blue tie into his mouth.

[OldPhiKap]

That conjures up an amusing image in my mind. The enforcement staff is detailing the absolute lack of institutional control, and how the scheme benefitted the various programs, including men's basketball, by allowing players to easily maintain eligibility. ol' roy reaches his breaking point and begins to stand up to set them straight, and three University lawyers immediately tackle him, stuffing his ugly blue tie into his mouth.

That would be a good gif.

[TampaDuke]

Unlike many extra benefit cases that involve specific and identifiable student-athletes, this case
presents systemic problems that resulted in institutional administrators providing extra benefits to a population of student-athletes over the course of nearly 10 years. In light of how the violations unfolded, the passage of time and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's records, it is not possible to specifically list each student-athlete who received an extra benefit. The enforcement staff appreciates the challenge this presents in fashioning penalties. However, the enforcement staff does not believe the violation analysis should be impacted by the systemic nature of the behaviors at issue or the lack of precise detail in the materials produced by the institution. Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited.[/I]


While the response overall is a great rebuttal to UNC's arguments on the merits, I, too, am troubled by the bolded part. It seems to me that the enforcement staff has given the COI (or the appeals panel) the blueprint to finding a violation while holding back on proper penalties (a possible compromise of sort). I hope swood is right that this language is much ado about nothing, but I would have liked the enforcement staff to have hammered them not only on the issue of whether there were violations, but also that the violations mandate dramatic penalties. It would be a real injustice if violations are found by the COI, only to have them given lesser penalties "in light of how the violations unfolded, the passage of time, and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's records." Since UNC controlled all of those factors, not only should they not get the benefit of the doubt if violations are found, but those factors, in my mind, should be the type of aggravating factors that lead the COI to levy heavy penalties.

Through all of this, and despite the NCAA's excellent rebuttal, I'm still very disappointed that the NCAA didn't have the guts to pursue this case as what it was -- academic fraud to keep athletes eligible. I understand why they charged it as extra benefits, but why not charge it as both an extra benefits case and an academic fraud case. I think they overthought it, overlawyered it, or just didn't have the stomach for it. Prove these classes were fraudulent -- which doesn't seem that hard -- and every athlete enrolled was ineligible if, without the class, they wouldn't have been eligible.

[thedukelamere]

Funny how this didn't make the front page on ESPN... Luckily for UNCheat, the #193 prospect in next year's football recruiting class chose Princeton over a Power 5 school, so that bumped this ugliness off the Top Headlines?

[CameronBlue]

While the response overall is a great rebuttal to UNC's arguments on the merits, I, too, am troubled by the bolded part. It seems to me that the enforcement staff has given the COI (or the appeals panel) the blueprint to finding a violation while holding back on proper penalties (a possible compromise of sort). I hope swood is right that this language is much ado about nothing, but I would have liked the enforcement staff to have hammered them not only on the issue of whether there were violations, but also that the violations mandate dramatic penalties. It would be a real injustice if violations are found by the COI, only to have them given lesser penalties "in light of how the violations unfolded, the passage of time, and the lack of personally identifying information in the institution's records." Since UNC controlled all of those factors, not only should they not get the benefit of the doubt if violations are found, but those factors, in my mind, should be the type of aggravating factors that lead the COI to levy heavy penalties.

Through all of this, and despite the NCAA's excellent rebuttal, I'm still very disappointed that the NCAA didn't have the guts to pursue this case as what it was -- academic fraud to keep athletes eligible. I understand why they charged it as extra benefits, but why not charge it as both an extra benefits case and an academic fraud case. I think they overthought it, overlawyered it, or just didn't have the stomach for it. Prove these classes were fraudulent -- which doesn't seem that hard -- and every athlete enrolled was ineligible if, without the class, they wouldn't have been eligible.

Defining "heavy" is a matter of perspective. If relative to past decisions, the NCAA simply ratchets up the numbers in terms of penalties against the program (e.g. fines, scholarships lost, post-season bans, coach's suspension) I think they will claim they did indeed wield the hammer of Thor and in 10 years, if UNC is still recovering from the effects of sanctions maybe they'll regret their strategy to protect the purloined titles at all costs. But by this "blueprint" the NCAA is avoiding the "ineligible player" issue which probably means that the banners are safe.

[aimo]

Am I the only one reading the last line?

"Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited."

I'm reading this as "We don't care that the holes left out the specific names involved. The whole mess is serious enough that we don't need them to punish you accordingly.' Am I wrong? Or just too hopeful?

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Am I the only one reading the last line?

"Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited."

I'm reading this as "We don't care that the holes left out the specific names involved. The whole mess is serious enough that we don't need them to punish you accordingly.' Am I wrong? Or just too hopeful?
A small part of me worries that they are saying this in order to say it... knowing that they may not actually be able to punish them the way we all hope.

[swood1000]

Also, I wonder if the COI could, without having to determine specific players were ineligible, cite the simple pervasiveness of the scheme (and the LOIC) as grounds to vacate the titles? Or, could those sorts of violations only be the basis for go-forward penalties (e.g., probation, scholarships, ban from the Tournament)?

Vacating wins is only discussed in the Bylaws in connection with an ineligible athlete — regular season in 19.9.7(g) and championships in 31.2.2.3. So I don’t see any way around the necessity of finding athlete-specific extra benefits resulting in ineligibility. I don't think they could get away with saying that the scheme was so pervasive that some MBB players on the championship team must have been ineligible.

[atoomer0881]

Random thought: does anyone know whether individual players' statistics get wiped if wins get vacated from ineligible players appearing in games? Like say the NCAA vacates the 2008-09 season and subsequent championship -- I know ole' Roy would have those wins taken off his career winnings list (like what we saw happen with Boeheim) but do the players who played in those games lose their stats from those games? I.e. is there any possibility that the ACC scoring title goes back to JJ or only if Hansbrough was himself an ineligible player?

[weezie]

Tell ya what, I'd love to see various Duke team members go Drive By Dunking at as many hole households as they can. Shred a few nets.

[duke043]

I too am concerned the NCAA seems to be conceding their inability to identify specific student-athletes ... but isn't this what they did with Louisville?

My understanding is that they told Louisville that participating athletes are ineligible ... and they're making the school identify those players and act accordingly in regards to eligibility.

I might expect the NCAA to tell UNC that that athletes who benefited from fraudulent classes were ineligible. This could get ugly, but it might be all the NCAA can do.

[gam7]

My favorite line (other than the wonderful graph already quoted by many that talks about why this "the NCAA business."):



Put another way -- "Your lawyers are quite clever. Props to them, but we will not take that bait. We know where we have winning arguments and that is where this debate will stay."

As I suspect the other lawyers on the board would attest, your translation doesn't quite capture the tone between the lines that I suspect the person drafting that wording intended to convey towards UNC's counsel. A more accurate translation would include a lot more wankerization.

[OldPhiKap]

Am I the only one reading the last line?

"Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited."

I'm reading this as "We don't care that the holes left out the specific names involved. The whole mess is serious enough that we don't need them to punish you accordingly.' Am I wrong? Or just too hopeful?


A small part of me worries that they are saying this in order to say it... knowing that they may not actually be able to punish them the way we all hope.

Just because they cannot identify "each instance" does not mean that they cannot identify a number of specific instances. I am hoping this is sort of a broad wave to the massive breadth of the fraud as opposed to an admission that there is a problem with sufficient proof. I must admit that I have not read the document itself yet.

But yeah, you can't vacate the wins of an ineligible athlete if you can't identify the athlete.

[Olympic Fan]

Just because they cannot identify "each instance" does not mean that they cannot identify a number of specific instances. I am hoping this is sort of a broad wave to the massive breadth of the fraud as opposed to an admission that there is a problem with sufficient proof. I must admit that I have not read the document itself yet.

But yeah, you can't vacate the wins of an ineligible athlete if you can't identify the athlete.

But we CAN identify at least one ineligible athlete -- Rashad MccCants in the spring of 2005.

We know because he admitted it and voluntarily released his transcript. He was -- or should have been -- ineligible that semester when he helped the Cheats win the 2005 NCAA title.

That banner should come down. Probably more ... but definitely that one.

[buddy]

I too am concerned the NCAA seems to be conceding their inability to identify specific student-athletes ... but isn't this what they did with Louisville?

My understanding is that they told Louisville that participating athletes are ineligible ... and they're making the school identify those players and act accordingly in regards to eligibility.

I might expect the NCAA to tell UNC that that athletes who benefited from fraudulent classes were ineligible. This could get ugly, but it might be all the NCAA can do.

I read this as giving the committee the opportunity to determine that penalties should apply, then telling the institution (which has the records) to identify the athletes and the contests in which they participated. Given the history of this case I would not be surprised if unc hid behind FERPA and claimed they were prevented from so identifying individual athletes (even though presumably the NCAA would not disclose publicly). In that case, the NCAA, after a finding of pervasive cheating, could simply vacate entire season for entire sports (including banner years). In my mind that would be appropriate.

[hudlow]

It's time for a Hail Mary, half-hearted attempt to self impose and further infuriate the committee.

[Olympic Fan]

I read this as giving the committee the opportunity to determine that penalties should apply, then telling the institution (which has the records) to identify the athletes and the contests in which they participated. Given the history of this case I would not be surprised if unc hid behind FERPA and claimed they were prevented from so identifying individual athletes (even though presumably the NCAA would not disclose publicly). In that case, the NCAA, after a finding of pervasive cheating, could simply vacate entire season for entire sports (including banner years). In my mind that would be appropriate.

Not possible ... every NCAA scholarship athlete signs a waiver giving the NCAA the right to see and use his academic records to determine his eligibility.

I think what's happening here is what's happened to Louisville. The NCAA ordered the school to sort through the data and determine who is eligible and who is not.

What I hope (and expect) to happen here is for the NCAA to order UNC to do the work -- to go through its records and determine -- within the given time frame --which athletes were ineligible ... UNC will "self-report" (which they should have done already) and then the NCAA will vacate all wins those players participated in.

UNC hasn't done that yet because they claim that NOBODY was ineligible. They won't be able to hide behind that argument if they lose in the COI.

[DukieInKansas]

Am I the only one reading the last line?

"Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited."

I'm reading this as "We don't care that the holes left out the specific names involved. The whole mess is serious enough that we don't need them to punish you accordingly.' Am I wrong? Or just too hopeful?

I know the emails out in the public eye have had the names redacted. Were they redacted on the copies sent to the committee? Don't the student-athletes sign something allowing their records to be shared with the NCAA? If this is correct, couldn't the line be interpreted as we can't identify all 3,000 student-athletes but we have enough names that the unidentified ones don't really make any difference?

Keeping fingers crossed.


ETA - Olympic Fan is good - he answered my question before I posted it.

[TampaDuke]

I too am concerned the NCAA seems to be conceding their inability to identify specific student-athletes ... but isn't this what they did with Louisville?

My understanding is that they told Louisville that participating athletes are ineligible ... and they're making the school identify those players and act accordingly in regards to eligibility.

I might expect the NCAA to tell UNC that that athletes who benefited from fraudulent classes were ineligible. This could get ugly, but it might be all the NCAA can do.

My recollection is that specific recruits were identified as receiving the extra benefits at Louisville. I'm don't think they included the names of the athletes in the decision, but I seem to recall detailed discussion about exact numbers of recruits and details indicating that they knew exactly who benefitted.

[devildeac]

This document is the first one I have seen where they stop I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. footing around and call UNC out for their BS. Better late than never.

I'm guessing this had something to do with a kitty or something of the feline persuasion...

:rolleyes:;)

[DukieInKansas]

I'm guessing this had something to do with a kitty or something of the feline persuasion...

:rolleyes:;)

I made the same guess and is is one of the funniest wankerizations I've seen.

[TampaDuke]

But we CAN identify at least one ineligible athlete -- Rashad MccCants in the spring of 2005.

We know because he admitted it and voluntarily released his transcript. He was -- or should have been -- ineligible that semester when he helped the Cheats win the 2005 NCAA title.

That banner should come down. Probably more ... but definitely that one.

Which makes it more baffling that the NCAA didn't seem to have enough interest to interview McCants or cite his evidence. Makes me think they didn't have the stomach to dig into the specifics.

In any event, my guess is that the COI will easily find that the violations occurred. From there, they'll need to (a) either recognize it for what it was and seriously look at eligibility issues and banner removal; or (b) take a narrow, technical view of the proof and levy future-impacting penalties/loss of tourney $$. I'd be willing to bet if they only impose future penalties, UNC will hem and haw about it, but grin and laugh about it privately.

[devildeac]

It's time for a Hail Mary, half-hearted attempt to self impose and further infuriate the committee.

What might you be suggesting? The Hat and ol roy would be forbidden from supervising one pre-season practice this/next year and the WBB coach be run over multiple times by a large, multi-wheeled chappaheeya public transit vehicle?

:rolleyes:

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Anyone want to wager a guess on how much UNC has squandered in legal fees if they end up hammered even worse than if they had fessed up years ago and suffered the consequences?

[devildeac]

I made the same guess and is is one of the funniest wankerizations I've seen.

Mattman is highly amused at one he discovered recently with a brewery named (insert alternative name for mule or buttocks here)Clown Brewing in Cornelius, NC.

:o;)

[buddy]

Anyone want to wager a guess on how much UNC has squandered in legal fees if they end up hammered even worse than if they had fessed up years ago and suffered the consequences?

$18MM and counting

[hudlow]

What might you be suggesting? The Hat and ol roy would be forbidden from supervising one pre-season practice this/next year and the WBB coach be run over multiple times by a large, multi-wheeled chappaheeya public transit vehicle?

:rolleyes:


...and everyone gets a stern talkin' to....

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

$18MM and counting

How in the H-E-Hockeysticks do you defend that waste if you lose banners?

[sagegrouse]

I read this as giving the committee the opportunity to determine that penalties should apply, then telling the institution (which has the records) to identify the athletes and the contests in which they participated. Given the history of this case I would not be surprised if unc hid behind FERPA and claimed they were prevented from so identifying individual athletes (even though presumably the NCAA would not disclose publicly). In that case, the NCAA, after a finding of pervasive cheating, could simply vacate entire season for entire sports (including banner years). In my mind that would be appropriate.

Yes, I believe it is a two-step process: (a) institutional culpability and then (b) the resulting athlete ineligibility.

[OldPhiKap]

Anyone want to wager a guess on how much UNC has squandered in legal fees if they end up hammered even worse than if they had fessed up years ago and suffered the consequences?

They spent $18m to delay things, and as a result they won a national championship and came within a hair of winning a second.

I think most Carolina folks think that it was a price worth paying.

[Henderson]

The NCAA's response has been released by UNC.

http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/university-releases-ncaa-correspondence-cited-in-public-records-requests/

If you look at the July 17 Reply of the NCAA Enforcement Staff, you'll see that the people on the ground at the NCAA -- the staff pros -- are all in on this. They think UNC has been bad bad bad and needs to be penalized hard. For the NCAA to ignore that position and do a wrist-slap would be seen by the staff as an emasculation. There must be some internal pressure among NCAA folks not to do that.

[devildeac]

...and everyone gets a stern talkin' to...

That should about cover it.

:rolleyes:

[devildeac]

If you look at the July 17 Reply of the NCAA Enforcement Staff, you'll see that the people on the ground at the NCAA -- the staff pros -- are all in on this. They think UNC has been bad bad bad and needs to be penalized hard. For the NCAA to ignore that position and do a wrist-slap would be seen by the staff as an emasculation. There must be some internal pressure among NCAA folks not to do that.

To which they will likely bleat, "Collusion! Pre-determination! Prejudice! Conflict of interest!"

:mad:

[Nugget]

Vacating wins is only discussed in the Bylaws in connection with an ineligible athlete — regular season in 19.9.7(g) and championships in 31.2.2.3. So I don’t see any way around the necessity of finding athlete-specific extra benefits resulting in ineligibility. I don't think they could get away with saying that the scheme was so pervasive that some MBB players on the championship team must have been ineligible.

Thanks! Appreciate all your attention in bringing clarity to the issues throughout the COI process.

[OldPhiKap]

That should about cover it.

:rolleyes:

"Don't make me turn this car around. . . ."

[sagegrouse]

To which they will likely bleat, "Collusion! Pre-determination! Prejudice! Conflict of interest!"

:mad:

I think you are right that the pettifoggery will continue. What do the lawyers say? "If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.” Fortunately, UNC is hammering the table with its head, which will produce severe concussion and even further mental incapacity.

Kindly,
sage
'I don't think hammering the table will do UNC one bit of good'

[BLPOG]

I think you are right that the pettifoggery will continue. What do the lawyers say? "If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.” Fortunately, UNC is hammering the table with its head, which will produce severe concussion and even further mental incapacity.

Kindly,
sage
'I don't think hammering the table will do UNC one bit of good'

What's that other hammer expression?

"When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a Tar Heel."

That's how I learned it, anyway.

[chrishoke]

What's the over/under on the number of days till Bilas once again comes to the defense of the CHeaters and publicly tears the NCAA staff response to shreds?

[devildeac]

I think you are right that the pettifoggery will continue. What do the lawyers say? "If you have the facts on your side, hammer the facts. If you have the law on your side, hammer the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law, hammer the table.” Fortunately, UNC is hammering the table with its head, which will produce severe concussion and even further mental incapacity.

Kindly,
sage
'I don't think hammering the table will do UNC one bit of good'

Nyet, nyet.

7546

Apparently photoshopping/fake Russian news was around almost 60 years ago, too. :rolleyes:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yho1Eydh1mM

[bob blue devil]

What's the over/under on the number of days till Bilas once again comes to the defense of the CHeaters and publicly tears the NCAA staff response to shreds?

hmm... rough timeline
* unc will have it's talking points formulated in, say, within a week
* unc will then start pushing them publicly and privately
* it will take bilas another week or so to master them, at which point he begins his defense

so, i'll say 1.5 weeks from the public release

[camion]

The UNC response: Here you go. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gi9zFRBCIM)

I kid because I love. Well actually I don't.

[hudlow]

"Don't make me turn this car around. . . ."

In my case that was usually followed by a backhand that could wipe out the entire back seat...

We can only hope.

[swood1000]

My favorite line (other than the wonderful graph already quoted by many that talks about why this "the NCAA business."):


this written reply will address the merits of serious allegations, rather than inflammatory
distractions or exhausted procedural arguments found in the institution's materials.

Put another way -- "Your lawyers are quite clever. Props to them, but we will not take that bait. We know where we have winning arguments and that is where this debate will stay."
The enforcement staff kept its reply to exactly 50 pages, the maximum allowed. In doing so it was unable to respond as fully as it wanted. For example, it didn't explain why UNC's figure of 26.3% of enrollees being student-athletes instead of 47.4 was off base. As to the claims about Auburn and Michigan it said "The enforcement staff believes all of these issues are without merit and do not warrant a discussion in its written reply." It was forced to skim over the interpretation by the ACC, and much of the discussion appears more compact than would be optimal. But I think it will not be lost on the COI panel that a scrupulous observation of the rules will necessarily produce this result.

The UNC reply that they were responding to, on the other hand, contained 2,500 pages, 2,400 of which were attachments (on the same 50 page allowance). Taking only the amount of space they were allotted would not have allowed them to raise so many issues. The enforcement staff just said that they'll be happy to answer any skipped questions at the hearing. (They also incorporated by reference their entire reply during NOA-2, so they were able to get the benefit of that as well.)

[OldPhiKap]

In my case that was usually followed by a backhand that could wipe out the entire back seat...

We can only hope.

True. And for Roy, it's "don't make me turn this bus around."

[swood1000]

The enforcement staff also made clear why they didn’t charge academic fraud based on the absence of content in these classes. They agreed with the institution that the NCAA enforcement staff “should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions.” They also acknowledged that the fact that “the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent” foreclosed any charges in that area, since the NCAA policy is to not second-guess the institution concerning whether the academic level was high enough.


It is equally important to be clear what this case is not about. This case is not about so-called fake classes or easy courses. The institution acknowledges that although the courses at issue did not meet its expectations for academic rigor, the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent. Nor is this case about NCAA review of classroom curriculum. The institution continues to argue that the NCAA enforcement staff should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions. The enforcement staff continues to agree and feels strongly that those considerations are reserved to the sound discretion of individual schools and their accrediting agencies. Nothing in this case suggests otherwise.

So what they ended up saying was, “Look, you’re free to have low-content/easy-grade classes, but you’re not free to give student-athletes enhanced access to such classes.” UNC, in reply, says that the NCAA is not competent even to evaluate whether or not a class was low-content. But is seems clear that while the NCAA policy is to not evaluate academics for the purpose of concluding that the academic level was too low, that does not preclude evaluating academics for the purpose of determining whether student-athletes got more than their fair share of low-content classes.

[MChambers]

The enforcement staff also made clear why they didn’t charge academic fraud based on the absence of content in these classes. They agreed with the institution that the NCAA enforcement staff “should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions.” They also acknowledged that the fact that “the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent” foreclosed any charges in that area, since the NCAA policy is to not second-guess the institution concerning whether the academic level was high enough.



So what they ended up saying was, “Look, you’re free to have low-content/easy-grade classes, but you’re not free to give student-athletes enhanced access to such classes.” UNC, in reply, says that the NCAA is not competent even to evaluate whether or not a class was low-content. But is seems clear that while the NCAA policy is to not evaluate academics for the purpose of concluding that the academic level was too low, that does not preclude evaluating academics for the purpose of determining whether student-athletes got more than their fair share of low-content classes.
i can see that argument. UNC, after all, has more expertise in low-content classes than any other school in the country.

[PackMan97]

The enforcement staff also made clear why they didn’t charge academic fraud based on the absence of content in these classes. They agreed with the institution that the NCAA enforcement staff “should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions.” They also acknowledged that the fact that “the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent” foreclosed any charges in that area, since the NCAA policy is to not second-guess the institution concerning whether the academic level was high enough.



So what they ended up saying was, “Look, you’re free to have low-content/easy-grade classes, but you’re not free to give student-athletes enhanced access to such classes.” UNC, in reply, says that the NCAA is not competent even to evaluate whether or not a class was low-content. But is seems clear that while the NCAA policy is to not evaluate academics for the purpose of concluding that the academic level was too low, that does not preclude evaluating academics for the purpose of determining whether student-athletes got more than their fair share of low-content classes.

UNC has said via the Hunt Report, the Weinstein Report and their issues with SACS that the courses had low-content/rigor. That is not under dispute.

However, UNC has not called them fraudulent, and so the NCAA can't prosecute on academic fraud.

[hallcity]

The enforcement staff also made clear why they didn’t charge academic fraud based on the absence of content in these classes. They agreed with the institution that the NCAA enforcement staff “should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions.” They also acknowledged that the fact that “the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent” foreclosed any charges in that area, since the NCAA policy is to not second-guess the institution concerning whether the academic level was high enough.



So what they ended up saying was, “Look, you’re free to have low-content/easy-grade classes, but you’re not free to give student-athletes enhanced access to such classes.” UNC, in reply, says that the NCAA is not competent even to evaluate whether or not a class was low-content. But is seems clear that while the NCAA policy is to not evaluate academics for the purpose of concluding that the academic level was too low, that does not preclude evaluating academics for the purpose of determining whether student-athletes got more than their fair share of low-content classes.

Let's say it wasn't a low content class but a high content class and one that was so popular that it was hard to get registered for it. Let's say that the athletic department pulled strings so that student-athletes got preferential registration for the course when others couldn't. That too would be a violation since it would be preferential treatment. I think it would be a lesser offense than what UNC did but it should still be a violation.

[dudog84]

So what they ended up saying was, “Look, you’re free to have low-content/easy-grade classes, but you’re not free to give student-athletes enhanced access to such classes.” UNC, in reply, says that the NCAA is not competent even to evaluate whether or not a class was low-content. But is seems clear that while the NCAA policy is to not evaluate academics for the purpose of concluding that the academic level was too low, that does not preclude evaluating academics for the purpose of determining whether student-athletes got more than their fair share of low-content classes.

No, no, no. You don't understand. "Ok, so we gave preferential treatment to student-athletes to get into these classes. But, they weren't low-content. They were high-content. Very high-content. Only the best content. And very rigorous. You can't be mad at us for making our student-athletes the best-educated student-athletes in the country, can you? Just look at their reading skills and ability to speak Swahili!"

[BigWayne]

I'm guessing this had something to do with a kitty or something of the feline persuasion...

:rolleyes:;)

Right you are. Surprised it grabbed that one. Didn't notice it until this morning.

[swood1000]

Random thought: does anyone know whether individual players' statistics get wiped if wins get vacated from ineligible players appearing in games? Like say the NCAA vacates the 2008-09 season and subsequent championship -- I know ole' Roy would have those wins taken off his career winnings list (like what we saw happen with Boeheim) but do the players who played in those games lose their stats from those games? I.e. is there any possibility that the ACC scoring title goes back to JJ or only if Hansbrough was himself an ineligible player?

The rules with respect to records when games are vacated or forfeited are found here (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf). Basically, the rules are as follows:


To record vacancies for NCAA tournament games, the wins and losses of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record and treated as if no games had been played. To record vacancies for regular season contests, the wins and ties, but not the losses, of the penalized team are dropped from its overall record. This affects season records, all-time records and coaches’ records. Example: If Team A was 18-10 for the season but has to vacate three regular-season wins and a win and loss in the NCAA Tournament, then Team A’s record would now stand at 14-9 for the season. All records that are changed should have an asterisk with the footnote stating something to the effect of “Later vacated by NCAA action.”

The won-lost records for each of the opposing teams are not changed when games are vacated. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics and the opponents’ records are not affected by this action. Since the team’s participation in the NCAA tournament is vacated, any team or individuals receiving NCAA tournament honors, such as being named to the All-Tournament Team or setting a tournament record, shall be asterisked with the footnote stating “Later vacated.”

To record a forfeit, the wins of the penalized team must be changed to losses, and the losses of its opponents must be changed to wins. This affects season records, all-time records and coaches’ records, and should be changed whenever and wherever these records appear. Except for any student-athletes declared ineligible, the individual statistics are not affected by this action. Example: If Team A was 18-10 for the season but has to forfeit five wins, then Team A’s record would now stand at 13-15 for the season and the won-lost records for each of the opposing teams affected also would be changed.

Individual records and performances of other players (teammates and opponents) who participated in these contests shall not be altered except for those players who were declared ineligible.

In compliance with the intention of the COI penalties, all team and coaches’ streaks (such as wins, postseason appearances, team statistical streaks, and so on) are terminated by the vacancy of a contest. For individuals, only the student-athletes who were declared ineligible would have streaks terminated.

Games later forfeited due to post-game administrative actions do not alter any NCAA statistics and/or records unless they are penalties passed down by the COI or NCAA executive action, or are dictated by the rules of the game. It is suggested schools and conferences denote such games by using an asterisk and a footnote, but continue to list the actual contest results.

[OldPhiKap]

Right you are. Surprised it grabbed that one. Didn't notice it until this morning.

George Carlson had a bit about words that sound dirty but aren't. Your word was an example. Then he said something to the effect of, "hey, baby, like those open-toed sandals"

Good times.

[devildeac]

The enforcement staff also made clear why they didn’t charge academic fraud based on the absence of content in these classes. They agreed with the institution that the NCAA enforcement staff “should not judge academic rigor or revisit classroom decisions.” They also acknowledged that the fact that “the institution did not deem the courses to be fraudulent” foreclosed any charges in that area, since the NCAA policy is to not second-guess the institution concerning whether the academic level was high enough.



So what they ended up saying was, “Look, you’re free to have low-content/easy-grade classes, but you’re not free to give student-athletes enhanced access to such classes.” UNC, in reply, says that the NCAA is not competent even to evaluate whether or not a class was low-content. But is seems clear that while the NCAA policy is to not evaluate academics for the purpose of concluding that the academic level was too low, that does not preclude evaluating academics for the purpose of determining whether student-athletes got more than their fair share of low-content classes.

From your quoted middle paragraph quote that I can't include in my reply:

"...accrediting agencies..."

Damn shame, too, because SACS already included that "angle" of academic fraud and Folt and Bubba agreed with them. :mad:

[NSDukeFan]

Not possible ... every NCAA scholarship athlete signs a waiver giving the NCAA the right to see and use his academic records to determine his eligibility.

I think what's happening here is what's happened to Louisville. The NCAA ordered the school to sort through the data and determine who is eligible and who is not.

What I hope (and expect) to happen here is for the NCAA to order UNC to do the work -- to go through its records and determine -- within the given time frame --which athletes were ineligible ... UNC will "self-report" (which they should have done already) and then the NCAA will vacate all wins those players participated in.

UNC hasn't done that yet because they claim that NOBODY was ineligible. They won't be able to hide behind that argument if they lose in the COI.
Based on how things have gone so far and the fact they haven't already self-reported on perhaps the greatest NCAA scandal, would the NCAA be able to trust UNC to self-report which athletes were ineligible?

[devildeac]

UNC has said via the Hunt Report, the Weinstein Report and their issues with SACS that the courses had low-content/rigor. That is not under dispute.

However, UNC has not called them fraudulent, and so the NCAA can't prosecute on academic fraud.

Or, as I kinda/sorta responded/suggested to swood, it's a crying, damn shame the NCAA can't use the SACS "definition" of academic fraud/misconduct, because unc is sure as hell never going to admit to it or self-report (their lying, cheating carcasses).

[MarkD83]

Am I the only one reading the last line?

"Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited."

I'm reading this as "We don't care that the holes left out the specific names involved. The whole mess is serious enough that we don't need them to punish you accordingly.' Am I wrong? Or just too hopeful?

This is also a key line that I picked up. Here is the logic I see the enforcement staff is using. The impermissible benefit is enrollment in the classes in question. The quality of the class does not matter. The w report lists the number of athletes by sport that were in these classes. So...even though specific athletes are not identified that does not matter. Any athlete enrolled in these classes received an impermissible benefit so the w graph dictates what teams had athletes in the classes and these teams had players that received benefits even if we do not know which athlete. If unc wants to contest this please identify the athletes and we will then ask for their unredacted transcript and a request for an interview

[swood1000]

Let's say it wasn't a low content class but a high content class and one that was so popular that it was hard to get registered for it. Let's say that the athletic department pulled strings so that student-athletes got preferential registration for the course when others couldn't. That too would be a violation since it would be preferential treatment. I think it would be a lesser offense than what UNC did but it should still be a violation.

The new rules that went into effect 8/1/2016 got rid of academic extra benefits. Now, the first question is “Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?” If the answer is ‘no’ then you have to answer ‘yes’ to all of the following for there to be an Impermissible Academic Assistance violation:
 
1. Substantial academic assistance or exception;
2. Not generally available to institution’s students;
3. Not permissible under bylaw 16.3;
4. Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
5. Results in certification of eligibility.

It looks like under your facts we could answer ‘yes’ to 2, 3 and 4. For number 1 the question is whether the academic assistance was ‘substantial.’ UNC, in their response to NOA-3 included some NCAA guidance on the question of what is ‘substantial.’
 
To be very clear, the enforcement staff will not pursue allegations where appropriate personnel provide…edits to a research paper. These and other similar supports advance the collegiate model and the educational interests of college athletes. The enforcement staff will not bring allegations in these instances. Exhibit 2-14

That’s sort of the million-dollar question. We’re not looking for the close call. We’re not looking for a paragraph added. We’re not looking for heavy editing. We’re looking for an entire paper has been done for someone. We’re looking where someone got the answer key to an entire exam. We’re looking at things that make a big difference for that class. Exhibit 2-15

For number 5 the question is whether the student-athlete would still have been eligible that semester without that class. (Would he have been taking too few classes or would his GPA have been too low without that class averaged in?) If the answer is that he would have still been eligible then there was no violation.

[BigWayne]

Am I the only one reading the last line?

"Put simply, serious violations occurred even if factual information in the record does not identify each instance or each student-athlete who benefited."

I'm reading this as "We don't care that the holes left out the specific names involved. The whole mess is serious enough that we don't need them to punish you accordingly.' Am I wrong? Or just too hopeful?

This is part of the "sending of the message" that the NCAA is doing in this salvo. They are telling UNC to stop quibbling on the finer points. While the evidence is not so solid that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is well past the "preponderance of evidence" threshold. In other words, they are being told "resistance is futile."

[swood1000]

Or, as I kinda/sorta responded/suggested to swood, it's a crying, damn shame the NCAA can't use the SACS "definition" of academic fraud/misconduct, because unc is sure as hell never going to admit to it or self-report (their lying, cheating carcasses).

I don’t know. According to their 2012 Public Infractions Report (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=102358), UNC “self-discovered” academic fraud involving a former tutor who “wrote conclusive paragraphs for papers, revised drafts, composed "works-cited" pages, researched and edited content and inserted citations, among other violations.” Sounds a lot like Boxill doesn’t it? But they dispute that Boxill’s activities rose to that level. I don’t know what their cutoff is.

[swood1000]

This is also a key line that I picked up. Here is the logic I see the enforcement staff is using. The impermissible benefit is enrollment in the classes in question. The quality of the class does not matter. The w report lists the number of athletes by sport that were in these classes. So...even though specific athletes are not identified that does not matter. Any athlete enrolled in these classes received an impermissible benefit so the w graph dictates what teams had athletes in the classes and these teams had players that received benefits even if we do not know which athlete. If unc wants to contest this please identify the athletes and we will then ask for their unredacted transcript and a request for an interview

It seems to me that they’re talking more about the situation with the independent study classes, about which Wainstein said:


It is impossible to identify the number of students who were enrolled in independent study paper classes because of the way course enrollments for independent studies were handled in AFAM. … As a result, we cannot isolate which students received a traditional independent study experience (with faculty oversight) from those who had an irregular experience (with no faculty oversight and papers assigned and graded by Crowder). Based on confident assertions by Crowder and Nyang’oro that “most” of the independent studies offered by AFAM during that period were irregular, however, we can reasonably assume that over 50% of the total AFAM independent studies enrollments were irregular.

I have also made the argument that the burden of proof should be switched as a result of these kinds of facts, and that UNC should have to prove that a particular independent study was not irregular, but I’m not holding my breath on that one. However, it seems likely to me that they will be able to match up enough MBB players with these classes to carve great holes in their banner exhibition.

[TampaDuke]

The new rules that went into effect 8/1/2016 got rid of academic extra benefits. Now, the first question is “Did conduct violate the institution’s academic misconduct policies & procedures?” If the answer is ‘no’ then you have to answer ‘yes’ to all of the following for there to be an Impermissible Academic Assistance violation:
 
1. Substantial academic assistance or exception;
2. Not generally available to institution’s students;
3. Not permissible under bylaw 16.3;
4. Provided by current or former institutional staff or representative of athletics interests; and
5. Results in certification of eligibility.


So if Julius N. and Crowder had hatched a plan to assist non-student-athletes by having no show paper classes, which were graded by a secretary, the NCAA would have nothing to say about it if 4-5 starters on the basketball team stumbled across the classes and used a number of them to remain eligible?

[gillmic]

If the answer is "yes," then damn the whole University and revoke their accreditation.



So if Julius N. and Crowder had hatched a plan to assist non-student-athletes by having no show paper classes, which were graded by a secretary, the NCAA would have nothing to say about it if 4-5 starters on the basketball team stumbled across the classes and used a number of them to remain eligible?

[swood1000]

So if Julius N. and Crowder had hatched a plan to assist non-student-athletes by having no show paper classes, which were graded by a secretary, the NCAA would have nothing to say about it if 4-5 starters on the basketball team stumbled across the classes and used a number of them to remain eligible?
Under both the new and the old rules if the academic misconduct policies were not broken and if the classes were generally available to the students (with the athletes given no preference), then there is no violation.

The new rules open up a new loophole. If the classes do not violate the academic misconduct policies then even if they are offered only to athletes it's not a violation as long as the athlete would have been eligible without the classes. So they can sign the athletes up for the minimum number of legitimate classes in a semester and then tack on two or three paper classes (available only to athletes) to boost overall GPA and to keep academic progress strong, and as long as the athlete receives the minimum allowable grades from the legitimate classes it's no violation.

[atoomer0881]

The rules with respect to records when games are vacated or forfeited are found here (http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/ForSIDs/Policies.pdf). Basically, the rules are as follows:

Thanks for finding this! So basically, it seems the only way the scoring title would ever go back to JJ is if Hansbrough himself was declared an ineligible player during any of his 4 seasons.

[weezie]

...the only way the scoring title would ever go back to JJ is if Hansbrough himself was declared an ineligible player during any of his 4 seasons.

I feel pretty certain that ain't never going to happen. Not to their darling!

But, considering that JJ is having a real career in the NBA, is media savvy, intelligent and faaaaaaar better looking (without a bowl haircut :eek:) I think JJ will have the last sneering chuckle.

Never mind all the "yes we're pals, we've grown up together and respect each other" around the Duke vs. holes players, both sides are keeping an eye on the proceedings.

[OldPhiKap]

Thanks for finding this! So basically, it seems the only way the scoring title would ever go back to JJ is if Hansbrough himself was declared an ineligible player during any of his 4 seasons.

Which, I think, is fair. If Hans did not violate the rules, for better or worse his scoring mark should stand.

But I also believe that Shoeless Joe should be in the HOF. So I may not reflect the majority opinion on this board.

[swood1000]

Thanks for finding this! So basically, it seems the only way the scoring title would ever go back to JJ is if Hansbrough himself was declared an ineligible player during any of his 4 seasons.
Unfortunately for some, vacated wins do affect coaches' records.

http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/styles/640x360/public/media/usatsi_9814250_168380788_lowres.jpg?itok=dgosrsMt

[English]

Which, I think, is fair. If Hans did not violate the rules, for better or worse his scoring mark should stand.

But I also believe that Shoeless Joe should be in the HOF. So I may not reflect the majority opinion on this board.

While perhaps non-zero, I'd wager the odds that Hansblah did NOT participate in this academic charade are infinitesimal. I mean, the guy reads about as well in English and he does in Swahili.

[PackMan97]

While perhaps non-zero, I'd wager the odds that Hansblah did NOT participate in this academic charade are infinitesimal. I mean, the guy reads about as well in English and he does in Swahili.

It never gets old!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JieHmC9DH8

[devildeac]

Unfortunately for some, vacated wins do affect coaches' records.

http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/styles/640x360/public/media/usatsi_9814250_168380788_lowres.jpg?itok=dgosrsMt

I'd be real happy for ol roy if he was given the opportunity to attain that milestone again...

[OldPhiKap]

I'd be real happy for ol roy if he was given the opportunity to attain that milestone again...

I'd like him to retire in disgrace before he has the opportunity to get there again.

[swood1000]

UNC raised this issue. In the Bylaws violations are given a level of seriousness from 1 to 4:


19.1.1 Severe Breach of Conduct (Level I Violation). A severe breach of conduct is one or more violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, as set forth in the constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

19.1.2 Significant Breach of Conduct (Level II Violation). A significant breach of conduct is one or more violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; include more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involve conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model as set forth in the constitution and bylaws.

19.1.3 Breach of Conduct (Level III Violation). A breach of conduct is one or more violations that are isolated or limited in nature; provide no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and provide no more than a minimal impermissible benefit.

19.1.4 Incidental Infraction (Level IV Violation). An incidental infraction is a minor infraction that is technical in nature and does not constitute a Level III violation. Incidental infractions generally will not affect eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.

Suppose there is a violation under the prior rules that would not be a violation under the current rules. For example, suppose a student-athlete took a paper class but would have been eligible that semester without that class. Would it be appropriate to consider that violation to be Level I, a “severe breach of conduct…that seriously undermine[s] or threaten[s] the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model”? Although it was a violation, as far as its seriousness level is concerned could we really say that it seriously undermined the NCAA Collegiate Model if it is currently not even considered to be a violation?

[aimo]

It never gets old!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JieHmC9DH8

My AC has been out since Tuesday. Thank you for making me smile.

[devildeac]

I'd like him to retire in disgrace before he has the opportunity to get there again.

I could heartily endorse that alternative point of view, too.

[OldPhiKap]

I could heartily endorse that alternative point of view, too.

My other alternatives are to have the University Trustees mean-tweet him until he quits, or firing him in a public humiliating rebuke.

Lots of ways it could go down. I'm flexible.

[atoomer0881]

I feel pretty certain that ain't never going to happen. Not to their darling!

But, considering that JJ is having a real career in the NBA, is media savvy, intelligent and faaaaaaar better looking (without a bowl haircut :eek:) I think JJ will have the last sneering chuckle.

Never mind all the "yes we're pals, we've grown up together and respect each other" around the Duke vs. holes players, both sides are keeping an eye on the proceedings.

Yea I'd say between the two of them, JJ definitely will have the last laugh. Kind of incredible that after his first few years in Orlando everyone was claiming he was a bust, and now 7 years later he's one of the most respected players in the league. Also with so fewer All-Stars in the East, I wouldn't be surprised to see JJ make his first All-Star game this year assuming he can play as well in Philly as he's played the past 4 years in LA.


Which, I think, is fair. If Hans did not violate the rules, for better or worse his scoring mark should stand.

But I also believe that Shoeless Joe should be in the HOF. So I may not reflect the majority opinion on this board.

I agree. IF Hansbrough didn't violate any rules, then I agree his scoring mark should stand. There's no reason he should lose a record because of the actions of some (all...?) of his teammates.


Unfortunately for some, vacated wins do affect coaches' records.

http://i.turner.ncaa.com/sites/default/files/styles/640x360/public/media/usatsi_9814250_168380788_lowres.jpg?itok=dgosrsMt

haha so hopefully perhaps more than just the championship banners will have to come down then....

[Indoor66]

My other alternatives are to have the University Trustees mean-tweet him until he quits, or firing him in a public humiliating rebuke.

Lots of ways it could go down. I'm flexible.

I will provide a Stake to be installed in front of Old South. You figure out what to do with it.

[DukeFanSince1990]

It never gets old!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JieHmC9DH8

He has a degree in communication studies from UNC. Never forget that.

[OldPhiKap]

I will provide a Stake to be installed in front of Old South. You figure out what to do with it.

How did you know he was a witch?

[swood1000]

How did you know he was a witch?
Oh. I thought it was the stake to be put through the heart of a vampire.

[Indoor66]

Think more in terms of Joan of Arc....:p:cool:

[swood1000]

Think more in terms of Joan of Arc...:p:cool:
Isn't that a bit heroic?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Stilke_Hermann_Anton_-_Joan_of_Arc%27s_Death_at_the_Stake.jpg/170px-Stilke_Hermann_Anton_-_Joan_of_Arc%27s_Death_at_the_Stake.jpg

Wouldn't something along the line of drawing and quartering be a better fit?

http://www.duhaime.org/Portals/duhaime/images/drawn-and-quartered.jpg

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

UNC raised this issue. In the Bylaws violations are given a level of seriousness from 1 to 4:



Suppose there is a violation under the prior rules that would not be a violation under the current rules. For example, suppose a student-athlete took a paper class but would have been eligible that semester without that class. Would it be appropriate to consider that violation to be Level I, a “severe breach of conduct…that seriously undermine[s] or threaten[s] the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model”? Although it was a violation, as far as its seriousness level is concerned could we really say that it seriously undermined the NCAA Collegiate Model if it is currently not even considered to be a violation?
But there is no judgment being made about the legitimacy of the classes -- only that athletes received extra benefits in gaining special access to the classes.

[swood1000]

haha so hopefully perhaps more than just the championship banners will have to come down then...

In the 2015 Syracuse Public Infractions Decision they said:


Any public reference to the vacated contests shall be removed from athletics department stationary, banners displayed in public areas and any other forum in which they may appear. Any trophies awarded by the NCAA in these sports shall be returned to the Association.

So I guess this means that ACC championship banners have to come down too. ACC trophies must be removed from the trophy case but need not be returned to the ACC? For wins in a record book they have to put an asterisk to a footnote stating "Later vacated." I wonder how they’re supposed to handle it if a banner that can stay up lists a win total that was later vacated. An asterisk to some small print on the banner?

[English]

In the 2015 Syracuse Public Infractions Decision they said:



So I guess this means that ACC championship banners have to come down too. ACC trophies must be removed from the trophy case but need not be returned to the ACC? For wins in a record book they have to put an asterisk to a footnote stating "Later vacated." I wonder how they’re supposed to handle it if a banner that can stay up lists a win total that was later vacated. An asterisk to some small print on the banner?

Light it on fire?

[devildeac]

Light it on fire?

I'm in for a gallon:

7548

[DukieInKansas]

Light it on fire?


I'm in for a gallon:

7548

Is the match struck while the banner is still hanging or is it forcefully removed first?

[devildeac]

Is the match struck while the banner is still hanging or is it forcefully removed first?

Still hanging. More chances for collateral damage...

[OldPhiKap]

But there is no judgment being made about the legitimacy of the classes -- only that athletes received extra benefits in gaining special access to the classes.

Exactly. If a school wants a class where everyone gets an A just for registering, so be it. If they give preferential admission to that class, that's an impermissible benefit.

[swood1000]

But there is no judgment being made about the legitimacy of the classes -- only that athletes received extra benefits in gaining special access to the classes.
Yes, and extra benefits results in ineligibility. But the characterization of an infraction as having a certain seriousness level has additional ramifications. For example there are the new Penalty Guidelines (not applicable to this case). So it would seem to make a difference whether an infraction is designated as Level I or as Level II or lower.

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7549&stc=1

[swood1000]

Exactly. If a school wants a class where everyone gets an A just for registering, so be it. If they give preferential admission to that class, that's an impermissible benefit.
Under the current rules that's not an impermissible benefit if the athlete would have been eligible without that class.

[English]

Under the current rules that's not an impermissible benefit if the athlete would have been eligible without that class.

So, perhaps the COI should determine everyone over the past two decades was just a LITTLE ineligible, and then do what it does to ineligible athletes' records, trophies, and banners. Seems fair to this bro.

[OldPhiKap]

Under the current rules that's not an impermissible benefit if the athlete would have been eligible without that class.

Even if they are given preferential admission to a class that doesn't even meet but provides an automatic A? It's certainly a benefit. I cannot see how it would be permissible, because it has value.

But just going by a drive-by viewing of the thread.

[swood1000]

Even if they are given preferential admission to a class that doesn't even meet but provides an automatic A? It's certainly a benefit. I cannot see how it would be permissible, because it has value.

But just going by a drive-by viewing of the thread.
Under the new rules the first question is whether it violated the institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures. If the answer is no then it's not a violation if the athlete would have been eligible without that class. An automatic A with no classes would seem to violate academic misconduct policies.

The point UNC is raising is this. Under the new rules if you have conduct on the right side of this graph and 'no' is answered to any of those questions, then there is no violation. If we have the exact same conduct prior to the new rules it will result in extra benefits if it is not generally available to the institution's students, and consequently there will be ineligibility. But beyond that, the infraction has to be assigned a seriousness level for purposes of other penalties and is it appropriate to say that something that happened just prior to the new rules is a Level I infraction, which seriously undermines the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, when the same conduct just after the new rules is not even an infraction?

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7550&stc=1

[devildeac]

Under the new rules the first question is whether it violated the institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures. If the answer is no then it's not a violation if the athlete would have been eligible without that class. An automatic A with no classes would seem to violate academic misconduct policies.

The point UNC is raising is this. Under the new rules if you have conduct on the right side of this graph and 'no' is answered to any of those questions, then there is no violation. If we have the exact same conduct prior to the new rules it will result in extra benefits if it is not generally available to the institution's students, and consequently there will be ineligibility. But beyond that, the infraction has to be assigned a seriousness level for purposes of other penalties and is it appropriate to say that something that happened just prior to the new rules is a Level I infraction, which seriously undermines the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, when the same conduct just after the new rules is not even an infraction?

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7550&stc=1

Interesting angle. Not sure I've seen the cheaters try to apply that logic/approach. Yet. What if the improper benefits occurred for 1 year? 5 years? 23 years (cough)? I'd still think the old rules would have to apply, unless the NCAA caves and says "no punishment" because we have new rules now.

[OldPhiKap]

The point UNC is raising is this. Under the new rules if you have conduct on the right side of this graph and 'no' is answered to any of those questions, then there is no violation. If we have the exact same conduct prior to the new rules it will result in extra benefits if it is not generally available to the institution's students, and consequently there will be ineligibility. But beyond that, the infraction has to be assigned a seriousness level for purposes of other penalties and is it appropriate to say that something that happened just prior to the new rules is a Level I infraction, which seriously undermines the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, when the same conduct just after the new rules is not even an infraction?


It's been a long afternoon so not sure I follow this. If the argument is that it's fine now, and therefore should have been fine before, that's not how the law works absent an express intent to make the application of the new rule retroactive.

If that's really the best UNC has, this shouldn't take long.

[kmspeaks]

Under the new rules the first question is whether it violated the institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures. If the answer is no then it's not a violation if the athlete would have been eligible without that class. An automatic A with no classes would seem to violate academic misconduct policies.

The point UNC is raising is this. Under the new rules if you have conduct on the right side of this graph and 'no' is answered to any of those questions, then there is no violation. If we have the exact same conduct prior to the new rules it will result in extra benefits if it is not generally available to the institution's students, and consequently there will be ineligibility. But beyond that, the infraction has to be assigned a seriousness level for purposes of other penalties and is it appropriate to say that something that happened just prior to the new rules is a Level I infraction, which seriously undermines the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, when the same conduct just after the new rules is not even an infraction?

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7550&stc=1

Isn't this why the NCAA went with extra benefits rather than academic fraud, because there are too many loopholes in that direction for schools who lack the integrity to police themselves? So then why would new rules on academic fraud matter, if that's not what they were charged with? Or am I not understanding some terminology here? The terms used tin that chart are "NCAA Academic Misconduct Violation" and "NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance Violation" which would be different than extra benefits in my mind but I'm not an NCAA rules expert.

[devildeac]

It's been a long afternoon so not sure I follow this. If the argument is that it's fine now, and therefore should have been fine before, that's not how the law works absent an express intent to make the application of the new rule retroactive.

If that's really the best UNC has, this shouldn't take long.

Common sense timetable: another 90-120 days (COI, response/appeal, hammers)

Reality: another 2-3 years of appeals, courts, etc

I'm with you though.

[PackMan97]

Isn't this why the NCAA went with extra benefits rather than academic fraud, because there are too many loopholes in that direction for schools who lack the integrity to police themselves?

This right here! That UNC refuses to admit how the scam worked should result in the death penalty. I'm am SO glad that the NCAA included the infamous slide in their reply.

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/files/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-22-at-10.43.39-AM.png

I don't care what type of technicalities that UNC wants to throw at this...they are stone cold guilty and only their refusal to follow the rules is the only reason they still have a sports program. I have lost some of my faith in humanity due to the response to this scandal by the UNC administration, UNC fans, the UNC BoT, the UNC BoG, the Government of NC, the value of accrediting agencies, and pretty much every adult involved.

For some reason, all of those involved really see nothing wrong and do not want to punish themselves for their behavior.

UNC has perverted their University mission to serve athletic success first and foremost. As a result, they should no longer have an athletic department. Nuke it and be done.

[swood1000]

It's been a long afternoon so not sure I follow this. If the argument is that it's fine now, and therefore should have been fine before, that's not how the law works absent an express intent to make the application of the new rule retroactive.

If that's really the best UNC has, this shouldn't take long.
No. UNC does not dispute that if there were extra benefits under the applicable rules a few years ago, one of the penalties is ineligibility. But infractions can result in additional penalties, besides ineligibility. For example, should there be a post-season ban and how long should it be? Should there be scholarship reductions and what should they be? In answering these questions they first assign a seriousness level to each infraction. So a minor case of extra benefits, even though it results in ineligibility and the vacating of wins, is not necessarily called a Level I extremely serious infraction. The COI has to make a judgement and may conclude that the facts suggest a less serious, Level II infraction, which would have an impact on how long a post-season ban should be and how many scholarship reductions there should be.

This is a judgement call on the part of the COI, and for purposes of this assessment would it make sense for the COI to conclude that a fact pattern currently declared to not even be an infraction should nevertheless be considered to have been, a few years ago, a Level I “severe breach of conduct…that seriously undermine[s] or threaten[s] the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model”?

[swood1000]

Interesting angle. Not sure I've seen the cheaters try to apply that logic/approach. Yet. What if the improper benefits occurred for 1 year? 5 years? 23 years (cough)? I'd still think the old rules would have to apply, unless the NCAA caves and says "no punishment" because we have new rules now.
They make that argument in connection with Boxill, arguing that her activities under the current rules would be at most a Level III violation so how could they be judged to be a Level I violation a few years ago.

They have not made the argument I posed, in connection with the paper classes, probably because there are few if any student-athletes who would have been eligible without these classes, making the question academic. In any event the argument would not result in “no punishment,” since there would still be ineligibility, but could result in a shorter post-season ban, for example.

[BigWayne]

I am not worried about the details of how to calculate eligibility, etc. The Tom Hosty letter (https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/07/NCAA-Enforcement-Reply-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-07-17-2017.pdf) puts the cheats on notice that their weak arguments don't hold water. Seeing this refreshing attitude from the NCAA makes me believe that the calculations of ineligibility and punishment are not going to be subject to the lame interpretations advanced by the cheats. The NCAA is pissed and is going to interpret the rules how they want, and as long as the cheats continue to fight it, they are not going to get favorable treatment.

[swood1000]

Isn't this why the NCAA went with extra benefits rather than academic fraud, because there are too many loopholes in that direction for schools who lack the integrity to police themselves? So then why would new rules on academic fraud matter, if that's not what they were charged with? Or am I not understanding some terminology here? The terms used tin that chart are "NCAA Academic Misconduct Violation" and "NCAA Impermissible Academic Assistance Violation" which would be different than extra benefits in my mind but I'm not an NCAA rules expert.

One of the problems under the old rules is that they had an exclusion/special rule for monetary extra benefits of a minor value but they had no exclusion for academic extra benefits of minor value. So that’s what the new “Impermissible Academic Assistance” was intended to provide. The old academic extra benefits is now Impermissible Academic Assistance. One of the requirements they added was that for there to be a violation the assistance has to be “substantial.” Another requirement they added was that for there to be a violation the athlete’s eligibility that semester had to depend on the assistance. Adding more requirements makes the infraction more difficult to charge.

Nobody questions that the prior rules govern prior conduct. However, when assigning a seriousness level to the prior infraction for purposes of other penalties such as post-season bans does it make sense to make a judgement that conduct which today would not be an infraction did, a few years ago, seriously undermine the NCAA Collegiate Model?

[OldPhiKap]

This right here! That UNC refuses to admit how the scam worked should result in the death penalty. I'm am SO glad that the NCAA included the infamous slide in their reply.

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/files/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-22-at-10.43.39-AM.png

I don't care what type of technicalities that UNC wants to throw at this...they are stone cold guilty and only their refusal to follow the rules is the only reason they still have a sports program. I have lost some of my faith in humanity due to the response to this scandal by the UNC administration, UNC fans, the UNC BoT, the UNC BoG, the Government of NC, the value of accrediting agencies, and pretty much every adult involved.

For some reason, all of those involved really see nothing wrong and do not want to punish themselves for their behavior.

UNC has perverted their University mission to serve athletic success first and foremost. As a result, they should no longer have an athletic department. Nuke it and be done.

I don't see why that slide in and of itself is not game, set, and match.


No. UNC does not dispute that if there were extra benefits under the applicable rules a few years ago, one of the penalties is ineligibility. But infractions can result in additional penalties, besides ineligibility. For example, should there be a post-season ban and how long should it be? Should there be scholarship reductions and what should they be? In answering these questions they first assign a seriousness level to each infraction. So a minor case of extra benefits, even though it results in ineligibility and the vacating of wins, is not necessarily called a Level I extremely serious infraction. The COI has to make a judgement and may conclude that the facts suggest a less serious, Level II infraction, which would have an impact on how long a post-season ban should be and how many scholarship reductions there should be.

This is a judgement call on the part of the COI, and for purposes of this assessment would it make sense for the COI to conclude that a fact pattern currently declared to not even be an infraction should nevertheless be considered to have been, a few years ago, a Level I “severe breach of conduct…that seriously undermine[s] or threaten[s] the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model”?

Gotcha I think. It is an argument going to the heft of the penalty, not to the guilt? It's only a misdemeanor pot possession, judge, not a felony intent to distribute?

[PackMan97]

Swood is simply defending the indefensible. Carolina committed academic fraud for the sake of winning at sports. They are guilty of this.

Whether or not they get their comeuppance is the question.

[Pghdukie]

Unfortunately, I cite State of California vs Orenthal James Simpson. Cheats whole defense will attack every single word, sentence, and paragraph.

[swood1000]

Swood is simply defending the indefensible.

You must be joking.

[PackMan97]

You must be joking.

Defend that PowerPoint slide. UNC is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

As I said the only question is whether they pay for it. Argue that until you are blue in the face, it won't change the fact UNC cheated.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Defend that PowerPoint slide. UNC is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

As I said the only question is whether they pay for it. Argue that until you are blue in the face, it won't change the fact UNC cheated.
Pretty sure Swood is doing nothing more than providing cogent analysis of the bylaws and available evidence. As he has been doing for some time. I've never once read his comments as offering even a remote defense of the cheaters. He has offered a realistic view and interpretation of the situation. But nothing more.

[PackMan97]

I've never once read his comments as offering even a remote defense of the cheaters. He has offered a realistic view and interpretation of the situation. But nothing more.

I would never make a good lawyer. I know that for certain.

What is left unsaid in my opinion is that UNC is not following the NCAA rules for self reporting violations, among which is academic fraud on a scale never seen before and as such all of his interpretations should be made unnecessary. Until that elephant in the argument is dealt with, everything else is attempting to let UNC off the hook.

[OldPhiKap]

I would never make a good lawyer. I know that for certain.

What is left unsaid in my opinion is that UNC is not following the NCAA rules for self reporting violations, among which is academic fraud on a scale never seen before and as such all of his interpretations should be made unnecessary. Until that elephant in the argument is dealt with, everything else is attempting to let UNC off the hook.

No question. UNC is unbowed, unapologetic, and unrepentant.

If you're gonna take that line -- you damn sure better win. Or you get rung up, bigly.

[BigWayne]

I would never make a good lawyer. I know that for certain.

What is left unsaid in my opinion is that UNC is not following the NCAA rules for self reporting violations, among which is academic fraud on a scale never seen before and as such all of his interpretations should be made unnecessary. Until that elephant in the argument is dealt with, everything else is attempting to let UNC off the hook.

Yes, and the NCAA basically called them out with the latest set of documents. Essentially saying that by any way you tally it up, the cheats broke the rules. Reading between the lines, the NCAA is fed up with the cheats deny, deflect, and delay scheme and is not particularly interested to hear what the cheats have to say about how to determine the size of the hammer.

[TampaDuke]

Is anyone knowledgeable as to whether NCAA enforcement staff ordinarily recommends penalties in their rebuttal or infractions notice? Or do they only address the class of violation and leave fashioning of specific penalties up to the COI?

[moonpie23]

we have 3 schools of prognostication...


1 - they skate

2 - they're hammered

3 - something in between...


i suggest that everyone that is correct be addressed as "YES! EL CAPITAN", and everyone that is not correct be addressed as "really? what were you thinking?"

it could be fun...

[devildeac]

we have 3 schools of prognostication...


1 - they skate

2 - they're hammered

3 - something in between...


i suggest that everyone that is correct be addressed as "YES! EL CAPITAN", and everyone that is not correct be addressed as "really? what were you thinking?"

it could be fun...

Poll? ;)

[devildeac]

Is anyone knowledgeable as to whether NCAA enforcement staff ordinarily recommends penalties in their rebuttal or infractions notice? Or do they only address the class of violation and leave fashioning of specific penalties up to the COI?

My understanding (and Mrs. dd questions that every day :o) is that it's the COI's responsibility for the penalty recommendations.

[BigWayne]

Is anyone knowledgeable as to whether NCAA enforcement staff ordinarily recommends penalties in their rebuttal or infractions notice? Or do they only address the class of violation and leave fashioning of specific penalties up to the COI?

In the documents that get sent to the schools and are publicly released, they do not state anything about recommended penalties. What they communicate within the NCAA, either written or verbal, is not known.

[JetpackJesus]

we have 3 schools of prognostication...


1 - they skate

2 - they're hammered

3 - something in between...


i suggest that everyone that is correct be addressed as "YES! EL CAPITAN", and everyone that is not correct be addressed as "really? what were you thinking?"

it could be fun...

If it's anything but Option 2, the appropriate response should be, "Really? What were they (re: NCAA) thinking?"

[OldPhiKap]

we have 3 schools of prognostication...


1 - they skate

2 - they're hammered

3 - something in between...


i suggest that everyone that is correct be addressed as "YES! EL CAPITAN", and everyone that is not correct be addressed as "really? what were you thinking?"

it could be fun...


Poll? ;)

The hard part for me is defining "hammered" and "skate" though. For me, if the banners stay up, they got away with what they wanted most. If the banners stay up but they get fined millions, I think they skated. If the banners came down but no fine, I think they got hammered and am satisfied.

[budwom]

Defend that PowerPoint slide. UNC is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

As I said the only question is whether they pay for it. Argue that until you are blue in the face, it won't change the fact UNC cheated.

The PowerPoint slide is one good reason why unc will lose even if they prevail, ultimately, in court on some technicality. I look forward to seeing that slide in newspapers and TV for months
while unc gets tangled in its institutional underwear trying to explain it away.

[Indoor66]

The PowerPoint slide is one good reason why unc will lose even if they prevail, ultimately, in court on some technicality. I look forward to seeing that slide in newspapers and TV for months
while unc gets tangled in its institutional underwear trying to explain it away.

If ever there was a smoking gun, that is it. On that item alone they self indicted for all sports and related to all "fake" classes. They will bet hammered for multi-championships across numerous sports.

[TampaDuke]

Under both the new and the old rules if the academic misconduct policies were not broken and if the classes were generally available to the students (with the athletes given no preference), then there is no violation.

The new rules open up a new loophole. If the classes do not violate the academic misconduct policies then even if they are offered only to athletes it's not a violation as long as the athlete would have been eligible without the classes. So they can sign the athletes up for the minimum number of legitimate classes in a semester and then tack on two or three paper classes (available only to athletes) to boost overall GPA and to keep academic progress strong, and as long as the athlete receives the minimum allowable grades from the legitimate classes it's no violation.

It boggles my mind that the NCAA would not recognize a baseline of academic misconduct, but leave it up to the institution's own policies (and apparently their own, flip-flopping, interpretation of them). I get that they don't want to regulate the classroom, but there is an obvious difference between easy classes and sham classes. Prohibiting sham classes given to athletes (even if given to other students) doesn't require you to regulate the classroom.

[TampaDuke]

This right here! That UNC refuses to admit how the scam worked should result in the death penalty. I'm am SO glad that the NCAA included the infamous slide in their reply.

http://www.chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/files/2014/10/Screen-Shot-2014-10-22-at-10.43.39-AM.png

I don't care what type of technicalities that UNC wants to throw at this...they are stone cold guilty and only their refusal to follow the rules is the only reason they still have a sports program. I have lost some of my faith in humanity due to the response to this scandal by the UNC administration, UNC fans, the UNC BoT, the UNC BoG, the Government of NC, the value of accrediting agencies, and pretty much every adult involved.

For some reason, all of those involved really see nothing wrong and do not want to punish themselves for their behavior.

UNC has perverted their University mission to serve athletic success first and foremost. As a result, they should no longer have an athletic department. Nuke it and be done.

One line of argument I found interesting in the NCAA's reply was the assertion that UNC gained a competitive advantage because these paper classes allowed it to admit, and maintain the eligibility of, "special admit" students who were not otherwise prepared for college.


The preferential access to the "special arrangement" courses and the corresponding course assistance provided the institution a competitive advantage because it allowed the institution to admit a significant number of student-athletes who were at risk. Once admitted, the scheme also provided a mechanism to keep the student-athletes eligible and freed them to spend more time engaged in sport. The athletics academic counselors within ASPSA turned to the AFRI/AFAM courses and exploited them to maintain the academic eligibility of student-athletes who struggled with the academic demands of the institution. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in a PowerPoint presentation Bridger prepared for the football staff after a season of particularly poor academic performance.

* * *
Exacerbating the lack of guidance plaguing the ASPSA athletics academic counselors was the growing number of student-athletes admitted by the institution who were academically at risk. Having athletics academic advising reporting to arts and sciences does not absolve the institution of the responsibility to monitor this group. If this logic applied, institutions could avoid compliance with NCAA legislation simply by crafting reporting lines outside of athletics. As a result of the growing pressures placed on the ASPSA staff by the sheer number of "special admits," they turned to the AFRI/AFAM department and the "special arrangements" it offered. Crowder had a close relationship with the ASPSA staff.

[davekay1971]

I have lost some of my faith in humanity due to the response to this scandal by the UNC administration, UNC fans, the UNC BoT, the UNC BoG, the Government of NC.

Don't lose faith in humanity. There's no evidence that the groups you've listed here are actually human.

[swood1000]

Gotcha I think. It is an argument going to the heft of the penalty, not to the guilt? It's only a misdemeanor pot possession, judge, not a felony intent to distribute?
Pretty much, except that certain elements of the penalty (ineligibility) are mandated by the statute. Other elements of the penalty (post-season ban) are left to the discretion of the COI, and how serious, overall, they think these facts were. But I'm going to drop it because people are having too much trouble understanding it. Also because the question is academic, since the paper class extra benefits would, in probably all instances, still be an infraction under the new rules and the seriousness level would not be less.

The COI will have to answer the question with respect to Boxill, and whether under the new rules her infraction would be Level III instead of Level I as charged. In their reply the enforcement staff argued that under the new rules it would still be Level I.


The enforcement staff believes Allegation No. 2 should be considered a Level I violation because the substantial academic benefits Boxill provided seriously undermine the NCAA Collegiate Model. Boxill occupied multiple positions that afforded her a special relationship with both the women's basketball program and her faculty colleagues. Boxill abused these positions to provide impermissible benefits to multiple women's basketball student-athletes over the course of eight years. She knowingly provided the assistance, which amounts to unethical conduct under Bylaw 10.1. Boxill's impermissible assistance to these student-athletes, who she admits may have failed but for her assistance, provided an extensive competitive advantage.

[swood1000]

Poll?

The hard part for me is defining "hammered" and "skate" though. For me, if the banners stay up, they got away with what they wanted most. If the banners stay up but they get fined millions, I think they skated. If the banners came down but no fine, I think they got hammered and am satisfied.

Right. I’d like to see a poll on how people define “hammered” and “skate.”

“If UNC receives severe sanctions including post-season bans, financial penalties, scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, but the 2005 and 2009 NCAA championship banners to remain up, could it still be said that UNC was “hammered”?

“Is it more likely than not that UNC will be “hammered”?

[chrishoke]

Right. I’d like to see a poll on how people define “hammered” and “skate.”

“If UNC receives severe sanctions including post-season bans, financial penalties, scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, but the 2005 and 2009 NCAA championship banners to remain up, could it still be said that UNC was “hammered”?

“Is it more likely than not that UNC will be “hammered”?

I know one thing, if the CHeaters get hammered, all of us will get hammered!

[moonpie23]

question: (swood)

IF..UNC is found guilty of giving improper benefits, doesn't that mandate wins vacated? and if they don't follow that mandate, how can they level other, lower level punishment?


it's seems to me that if they are guilty of improper benefits, they get the whole enchilada....no?

[OldPhiKap]

[1.] “If UNC receives severe sanctions including post-season bans, financial penalties, scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, but the 2005 and 2009 NCAA championship banners to remain up, could it still be said that UNC was “hammered”?

[2.] “Is it more likely than not that UNC will be “hammered”?

For me, the answer to the first question is "no."

As to the second question, I have no idea given all of the redactions in the documents. But if the NCAA takes its usual approach -- any game in which an ineligible player participates is vacated -- I do not see how at least one banner does not come down. (Although I hope they keep McCant's retired jersey up -- maybe they should just move that into the vacated banner's place).

[bob blue devil]

Right. I’d like to see a poll on how people define “hammered” and “skate.”

“If UNC receives severe sanctions including post-season bans, financial penalties, scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, but the 2005 and 2009 NCAA championship banners to remain up, could it still be said that UNC was “hammered”?

“Is it more likely than not that UNC will be “hammered”?

great question! for me (this is a men's basketball-centric response) it really revolves around the banners. yes, obviously other things are important, but hammer = multiple national titles stripped (assuming the rest of the penalties - financial, suspensions, bans, etc. - are reasonably comparable in severity) and skate = no titles coming down (and none of the other penalties reach a level that would be "shocking" in terms of severity). the banners are a massive symbol issue.

[swood1000]

Is anyone knowledgeable as to whether NCAA enforcement staff ordinarily recommends penalties in their rebuttal or infractions notice? Or do they only address the class of violation and leave fashioning of specific penalties up to the COI?
In the NOA the enforcement staff charges infractions and urges a severity level for those infractions. In some cases the infraction itself brings certain penalties. For example, extra benefits bring ineligibility, which brings vacated wins. The severity level controls how other penalties (post-season bans, scholarship reductions, etc.) should be applied so by urging a certain severity level they are recommending a certain range of other penalties, as shown by the new penalty guidelines. See the NCAA Division I Manual (https://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4435-2016-2017-ncaa-division-i-manual-august-version-available-august-2016.aspx), Figure 19-1.

[atoomer0881]

Right. I’d like to see a poll on how people define “hammered” and “skate.”

“If UNC receives severe sanctions including post-season bans, financial penalties, scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions, but the 2005 and 2009 NCAA championship banners to remain up, could it still be said that UNC was “hammered”?

“Is it more likely than not that UNC will be “hammered”?


great question! for me (this is a men's basketball-centric response) it really revolves around the banners. yes, obviously other things are important, but hammer = multiple national titles stripped (assuming the rest of the penalties - financial, suspensions, bans, etc. - are reasonably comparable in severity) and skate = no titles coming down (and none of the other penalties reach a level that would be "shocking" in terms of severity). the banners are a massive symbol issue.

I may be in the minority here (not sure) but for me personally, I care more about previous championships/records being vacated than I do about future post-season bans. My line of reasoning is that by stripping the University (btw can we even call them that?) of past championships, we are directly punishing those who were involved. I just personally have never been a fan of the future post-season bans for conduct done by past players/teams. Like for example, when Louisville self-imposed a post-season ban in 2016 for conduct that took place between 2010-2014, I felt very bad for Damion Lee and Trey Lewis, two senior transfers who had nothing to do with the sex scandal. I never like punishing current players for past teams' conduct. That said, I'm all about levying financial sanctions, suspending coaches who were involved with the team when the allegations took place, and reducing scholarships. I just don't feel UNCheat's 2018 squad should be punished (unless the school has continued this academic charade up to the present) for previous teams' actions. Again, I'm sure I'm in the minority here. But I'd like to see those past banners come down, and if they do I'll feel as if the hammer will have been dropped.

[swood1000]

question: (swood)

IF..UNC is found guilty of giving improper benefits, doesn't that mandate wins vacated? and if they don't follow that mandate, how can they level other, lower level punishment?


it's seems to me that if they are guilty of improper benefits, they get the whole enchilada...no?
Improper benefits mandates wins vacated but still leaves open the length of a potential post-season ban, for example.

Take the case of Campbell University (2016) (https://web3.ncaa.org/lsdbi/search/miCaseView/report?id=102549). There the violations were improper certification of eligibility and a failure to monitor. The parties (and COI) agreed that both violations were Level II. Since the athletes played while ineligible those wins had to be vacated. The fact that it was found to be Level II affected the other penalties, which were (besides certain self-imposed penalties) a one-year probationary period, a one-year postseason ban in baseball, a financial penalty, practice restrictions, and administrative reporting requirements. If it had been determined to be Level I maybe the postseason ban would have been two or three years.

[PackMan97]

I may be in the minority here (not sure) but for me personally, I care more about previous championships/records being vacated than I do about future post-season bans. My line of reasoning is that by stripping the University (btw can we even call them that?) of past championships, we are directly punishing those who were involved. I just personally have never been a fan of the future post-season bans for conduct done by past players/teams.

UNC has shown all they care about is winning. You can't take away what they've already won, you must punish them with preventing their winning in the future. Anything that leaves banners up and their athletic department anything other than a smoking crater is letting them skate.

Heck, delaying justice long enough for them to make it to the 2016 NCAA title game and win the 2017 Title already means they've skated, in my book.

[BD80]

It's time for a Hail Mary, half-hearted attempt to self impose and further infuriate the committee.

A half-Mary?


Right. I’d like to see a poll on how people define “hammered” and “skate.” ...

Wouldn't that be a survey?

[swood1000]

Wouldn't that be a survey?

I think devildeac, who originated the idea, was thinking of a DBR Poll.

[mgtr]

I think if UNC skates, whatever that means, I think it calls into question the viability and future of the NCAA itself. "If UNC can do this for 20 years, then why should I bother to even look honest?"

[UrinalCake]

Right. I’d like to see a poll on how people define “hammered” and “skate.”

Here's my (somewhat long-winded) definition of how their punishment should be defined:

Let's say you're a young, up-and-coming coach who just took over a program at a P5 school. Maybe Kevin Keatts would be a good example for a frame of reference, though I'm certainly not trying to single him out. Now let's say one day some mysterious figure in a black suit contacts you and says that he's a friend of the program and can arrange it so that for the next 25 years you can land whatever players you want, they'll never have to go to class, you'll win multiple National Titles, earn millions upon millions of dollars in salary and endorsements, be regarded as a god on campus, and go into the Hall of Fame. Everything will be kept from you so you won't know what's happening and will have plausible deniability. If you get caught, a team of high-priced lawyers will defend your school to the very end, and nothing will ever be traced back to you.

Now let's say the mysterious black figure says that the ONLY catch if you agree to this is that on the very, very small chance that you DO get caught AND your army of lawyers fails to successfully defend your program, the consequence will be X. What is your reaction to X? If your response is "I'm willing to risk all of that, and would accept X if it came to pass because all of the positives would outweigh X," then the punishment is not harsh enough. That's how I would define "skating." But if your reaction to X is "There is no way in hell I would do this, it's not worth the risk of X happening" then that is how I would defined getting hammered.

In my opinion, the punishment has to be harsh enough to discourage anyone from ever wanting to do what UNC did. At a minimum, the 2005 and 2009 banners have to come down, along with 5-10 season's worth of wins. That's just removing what they didn't earn, the actual punishments should be on top of that and should include post-season bans, recruiting restrictions, fines, suspensions for the coaches, etc. Anything less than that and they've skated. Because if you told a young coach that they could reap all the rewards that Roy has earned by cheating your butt off, and the only punishment if you get caught is to maybe have to give back a portion of it, then who in the world would say no to that?

[atoomer0881]

I may be in the minority here (not sure) but for me personally, I care more about previous championships/records being vacated than I do about future post-season bans. My line of reasoning is that by stripping the University (btw can we even call them that?) of past championships, we are directly punishing those who were involved. I just personally have never been a fan of the future post-season bans for conduct done by past players/teams.


UNC has shown all they care about is winning. You can't take away what they've already won, you must punish them with preventing their winning in the future. Anything that leaves banners up and their athletic department anything other than a smoking crater is letting them skate.

Heck, delaying justice long enough for them to make it to the 2016 NCAA title game and win the 2017 Title already means they've skated, in my book.

I get that. Which is why I want all past banners taken down, coach's suspended, financial penalties levied, and scholarships reduced. I guess I would add that if a post-season ban were to be implemented, I'd want it done before the season starts and to allow any and all current players to transfer unrestricted and be eligible to play immediately elsewhere. This way, these 18-22 year old kids aren't penalized for the actions of others. And if they choose to stay, then that's on them. But imagine a mass exodus of players leaving where what remains is but a shell of a team? It'd be fitting since they're a shell of an educational institution haha

[kmspeaks]

One of the problems under the old rules is that they had an exclusion/special rule for monetary extra benefits of a minor value but they had no exclusion for academic extra benefits of minor value. So that’s what the new “Impermissible Academic Assistance” was intended to provide. The old academic extra benefits is now Impermissible Academic Assistance. One of the requirements they added was that for there to be a violation the assistance has to be “substantial.” Another requirement they added was that for there to be a violation the athlete’s eligibility that semester had to depend on the assistance. Adding more requirements makes the infraction more difficult to charge.

Nobody questions that the prior rules govern prior conduct. However, when assigning a seriousness level to the prior infraction for purposes of other penalties such as post-season bans does it make sense to make a judgement that conduct which today would not be an infraction did, a few years ago, seriously undermine the NCAA Collegiate Model?

So there was a terminology change along with the rule change, got it, I'm with you now. Obviously we'll never see transcripts but I would not be surprised if enough of the athletes would have been ineligible without the special classes, so it's a violation under either set of rules, that it's really a moot point but uNC is just arguing every last detail. It would be similar to their disputing the percentage of athletes enrolled in the classes, whether it's 20 something or 40 something it's still not good.

I'm also disappointed in that new rule. A school could cheat exactly the way uNC did but just make sure it's only one class a semester and you're golden. If you don't get caught the kid gets a free GPA booster/credit toward graduation and if you do get caught he's still eligible so there's no punishment. We had to pass 12 credit hours every semester to be eligible so our coaches required us to take at least 15 so we had a buffer in case of failing one. Make that buffer class a fake one and a football player who redshirts and stays 5 years gets 10 free classes....that's 30 hours or an entire year of coursework!! :eek:

[Tommac]

UNC has shown all they care about is winning. You can't take away what they've already won, you must punish them with preventing their winning in the future. Anything that leaves banners up and their athletic department anything other than a smoking crater is letting them skate.

Heck, delaying justice long enough for them to make it to the 2016 NCAA title game and win the 2017 Title already means they've skated, in my book.

I'm with you, especially on your last comment. Had UNCheats not gone into "legal 4 corners" the case should have been handled already and they would have been banned from post season the past two years. They got two final fours and a NC by playing the delay game. I think we all saw through that for the last 2-3 years.

[OldPhiKap]

They got two final fours and a NC by playing the delay game. I think we all saw through that for the last 2-3 years.

From the tone of the NCAA response -- they did, too.

[swood1000]

I'm also disappointed in that new rule. A school could cheat exactly the way uNC did but just make sure it's only one class a semester and you're golden. If you don't get caught the kid gets a free GPA booster/credit toward graduation and if you do get caught he's still eligible so there's no punishment. We had to pass 12 credit hours every semester to be eligible so our coaches required us to take at least 15 so we had a buffer in case of failing one. Make that buffer class a fake one and a football player who redshirts and stays 5 years gets 10 free classes...that's 30 hours or an entire year of coursework!! :eek:

But the thing is that to make the scheme work the buffer classes, though without content and guaranteed an A, would have to not violate the institution's academic misconduct policies and procedures. So I'm not sure what "getting caught" even means. If the class doesn't violate the policies that must mean that it's good for credit. What is there to "catch"? And why limit it to only one buffer class per semester? Since they are requirement-free why not two or three?

The only catch is this: the rule says that you’re in the clear as long as the class was not necessary for the student-athlete to be eligible but what period do you look at for this purpose? Just the semester he took the class? The NCAA Question and Answer document (https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/DIENF_AcademicIntegrityQuestionsandAnswers_2016072 1.pdf) says that the relevant period “begins when the alleged impermissible academic assistance occurred and ends after an institutional determination is made regarding the alleged impermissible academic assistance.” They give this example:


Question No. 24: During the fall term, an institution determines that, in a spring course, a professor provided a basketball student-athlete with an academic exception that was not generally available to the student body. Pursuant to the institution's own policies and procedures, the academic exception provided by the professor did not constitute academic misconduct. Although the academic exception resulted in the student-athlete earning full credit for the spring course, the course was not necessary for the student-athlete to be certified as eligible for the fall term. Has an impermissible academic assistance violation occurred?

Answer: No, because the academic exception did not impact the student-athlete's eligibility between the times in which the exception was provided (previous spring term) and the institutional determination was made (end of fall term).

So if you have some special easy classes reserved for the athletes and the institution never makes a “determination” that they are not generally available to the student body, then they’re in trouble if the grades from these classes ever become necessary for the student-athlete to be eligible. For example, if such a class is taken fall term freshman year and senior year his GPA would be too low without the grade from that class averaged in, or his academic progress would be insufficient without those hours, then you would have to answer ‘yes’ to “Results in certification of eligibility.”

[devildeac]

I may be in the minority here (not sure) but for me personally, I care more about previous championships/records being vacated than I do about future post-season bans. My line of reasoning is that by stripping the University (btw can we even call them that?) of past championships, we are directly punishing those who were involved. I just personally have never been a fan of the future post-season bans for conduct done by past players/teams. Like for example, when Louisville self-imposed a post-season ban in 2016 for conduct that took place between 2010-2014, I felt very bad for Damion Lee and Trey Lewis, two senior transfers who had nothing to do with the sex scandal. I never like punishing current players for past teams' conduct. That said, I'm all about levying financial sanctions, suspending coaches who were involved with the team when the allegations took place, and reducing scholarships. I just don't feel UNCheat's 2018 squad should be punished (unless the school has continued this academic charade up to the present) for previous teams' actions. Again, I'm sure I'm in the minority here. But I'd like to see those past banners come down, and if they do I'll feel as if the hammer will have been dropped.


WRT the bolded above, am I correct in my understanding/knowledge that if a school is serving a post-season ban, can those players transfer effective that semester or the next semester and be eligible to play immediately?

If that is indeed true, I'm in favor of "retroactive" and future penalties. Stiff ones. Expensive ones. Long-lasting ones.

[devildeac]

I think devildeac, who originated the idea, was thinking of a DBR Poll.

Yes, that was indeed my intent. Thank you.

[atoomer0881]

WRT the bolded above, am I correct in my understanding/knowledge that if a school is serving a post-season ban, can those players transfer effective that semester or the next semester and be eligible to play immediately?

If that is indeed true, I'm in favor of "retroactive" and future penalties. Stiff ones. Expensive ones. Long-lasting ones.

If your understanding/knowledge is correct, then I agree with you: retroactive and future penalties of the expensive and long-lasting kind.

[swood1000]

WRT the bolded above, am I correct in my understanding/knowledge that if a school is serving a post-season ban, can those players transfer effective that semester or the next semester and be eligible to play immediately?

If that is indeed true, I'm in favor of "retroactive" and future penalties. Stiff ones. Expensive ones. Long-lasting ones.
There is a free transfer only if the post-season ban affects all remaining seasons of the athlete's eligibility.


14.7.2 Residence Requirement Waivers. The Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief may waive the one-year residence requirement for student-athletes under the following conditions or circumstances:
(c) On the recommendation of the Committee on Infractions, for a student-athlete who transfers to a member institution to continue the student-athlete’s opportunity for full participation in a sport because the student athlete’s original institution was placed on probation by the NCAA with sanctions that would preclude the institution’s team in that sport from participating in postseason competition during all of the remaining seasons of the student-athlete’s eligibility;

[PackMan97]

There is a free transfer only if the post-season ban affects all remaining seasons of the athlete's eligibility.

A five year ban is minimally acceptable. I knew there would be something we could agree upon.

[OldPhiKap]

A five year ban is minimally acceptable. I knew there would be something we could agree upon.

Pfffft. Softie.

[PackMan97]

Pfffft. Softie.

The ban is from operating as a university.

[Indoor66]

The ban is from operating as a university.

You mean representing itself as a university, don't you? 'Cause it is obvious that it has not been for many years.

[WiJoe]

Here's my (somewhat long-winded) definition of how their punishment should be defined:

Let's say you're a young, up-and-coming coach who just took over a program at a P5 school. Maybe Kevin Keatts would be a good example for a frame of reference, though I'm certainly not trying to single him out. Now let's say one day some mysterious figure in a black suit contacts you and says that he's a friend of the program and can arrange it so that for the next 25 years you can land whatever players you want, they'll never have to go to class, you'll win multiple National Titles, earn millions upon millions of dollars in salary and endorsements, be regarded as a god on campus, and go into the Hall of Fame. Everything will be kept from you so you won't know what's happening and will have plausible deniability. If you get caught, a team of high-priced lawyers will defend your school to the very end, and nothing will ever be traced back to you.

Now let's say the mysterious black figure says that the ONLY catch if you agree to this is that on the very, very small chance that you DO get caught AND your army of lawyers fails to successfully defend your program, the consequence will be X. What is your reaction to X? If your response is "I'm willing to risk all of that, and would accept X if it came to pass because all of the positives would outweigh X," then the punishment is not harsh enough. That's how I would define "skating." But if your reaction to X is "There is no way in hell I would do this, it's not worth the risk of X happening" then that is how I would defined getting hammered.

In my opinion, the punishment has to be harsh enough to discourage anyone from ever wanting to do what UNC did. At a minimum, the 2005 and 2009 banners have to come down, along with 5-10 season's worth of wins. That's just removing what they didn't earn, the actual punishments should be on top of that and should include post-season bans, recruiting restrictions, fines, suspensions for the coaches, etc. Anything less than that and they've skated. Because if you told a young coach that they could reap all the rewards that Roy has earned by cheating your butt off, and the only punishment if you get caught is to maybe have to give back a portion of it, then who in the world would say no to that?

From your fingers to the NCAA's eyes !!!!!
:cool:

[devildeac]

A five year ban is minimally acceptable. I knew there would be something we could agree upon.


Pfffft. Softie.

I think nine years are in the NCAA "sight-line." Sounds about right to me, though I could be easily persuaded to accept ~23 years of punishment, given the cheating started in about 1988.

[devildeac]

There is a free transfer only if the post-season ban affects all remaining seasons of the athlete's eligibility.

Thanks again for clarifying.

[Atlanta Duke]

I think if UNC skates, whatever that means, I think it calls into question the viability and future of the NCAA itself. "If UNC can do this for 20 years, then why should I bother to even look honest?"

What will also be interesting is if UNC receives a minimal admonishment for making sure the only benefits players received were academic scholarships that provided the opportunity to enroll in sham classes while Mississippi gets clobbered for players receiving a few monetary crumbs from the feast of dollars that the Rebels rake in from operating a big time football program, thereby establishing that the one thing the NCAA will not tolerate is anyone other than the athletic department and the coaches cashing in.

My guess is the NCAA is under big pressure from other member schools to drop the hammer on UNC as well as Ole Miss.

[Neals384]

I think if UNC skates, whatever that means, I think it calls into question the viability and future of the NCAA itself. "If UNC can do this for 20 years, then why should I bother to even look honest?"

Why? Because you're not UNC and the NCAA has to hammer someone to give the appearance of having some integrity.

[SirIronDuke]

Coincidentally, I have been reading this thread tonight while answering text questions from my daughter (away for the summer on an internship) as she fills out her NCAA paperwork for this coming school year.

When I look at the questions she is being asked on these forms or at the drug tests she has taken, or at the care with compliance that is taken at her institution, and then contrast that to what I see here, I can only reiterate that the NCAA has to crack UNC's skull lest they lose all authority.

The Carolina Way was a real thing back in my day. Although we hated them there was some real respect. No longer.

[Devil549]

Will the NCAA hammer UNC.....we don't know they should but many factors involved the biggest IMO Swofford as Commish of ACC....he should step down but instead again IMO he stays to protect UNC.

When this is all over (hopefully UNC will not continue to draw it out) most UNC fans will think the NCAA was too tough the rest of us not tough enough.

[sagegrouse]

Will the NCAA hammer UNC....we don't know they should but many factors involved the biggest IMO Swofford as Commish of ACC...he should step down but instead again IMO he stays to protect UNC.

When this is all over (hopefully UNC will not continue to draw it out) most UNC fans will think the NCAA was too tough the rest of us not tough enough.

Puzzled by your comment in regards to NCAA Committee on Infractions. The only ACC person on the COI is Melissa Conboy Deputy AD at Notre Dame, unless you count former GT coach Bobby Cremins. Now, when the NCAA has acted and the smoke has cleared, the ACC, I believe, can impose additional penalties. I hope that won't be necessary.

I personally think Swofford sticks around cuz he's paid $2 mil. per year and doesn't have a lot to do these days.

Kindly,
sage
'Although I give him credit for acting decisively on expansion [necessary but unfortunate], the prevention of poaching of existing ACC teams, and the media contracts bringing in more money for the ACC schools'

[Devil549]

Basically they will penalize UNC but IMO no banners come down and UNC fans will not like any penalties non UNC fans will want more. Also talking about NCAA as a whole not just COI.

This whole situation would have been over if UNC had self sanctioned and then accepted additional sanctions by NCAA....the normal process.

Swofford should have stayed out of this entire situation but he went with UNC to NCAA meeting at beginning. I told my son at the beginning of this entire situation that if they dug deep enough Swofford and Dean Smith would be involved. Who was the athletic director when this all started, African-American studies curriculum etc.….Swofford. In my opinion he is been more involved than he should've been because he was the athletic director at unc.

[swood1000]

Basically they will penalize UNC but IMO no banners come down and UNC fans will not like any penalties non UNC fans will want more. Also talking about NCAA as a whole not just COI.

This whole situation would have been over if UNC had self sanctioned and then accepted additional sanctions by NCAA...the normal process.

Swofford should have stayed out of this entire situation but he went with UNC to NCAA meeting at beginning. I told my son at the beginning of this entire situation that if they dug deep enough Swofford and Dean Smith would be involved. Who was the athletic director when this all started, African-American studies curriculum etc.….Swofford. In my opinion he is been more involved than he should've been because he was the athletic director at unc.
The only way for banners not to come down would be (a) for the COI panel to change its mind about the additional charges they asked the enforcement staff to bring, or (b) for no MBB player who played during either NCAA tournament to have been put into a paper class at the request of Walden some time prior to the tournament, or (c) for a court to decide that the COI’s decision was 'whimsical' or 'indicates a lack of fair and careful consideration.'

[Merlindevildog91]

https://pilotonline.com/sports/columnist/harry-minium/unc-s-arrogance-over-academic-scandal-has-tainted-the-school/article_18fc6af4-f808-53e6-b107-ca46fb2a1e6a.html

[Henderson]

Coincidentally, I have been reading this thread tonight while answering text questions from my daughter (away for the summer on an internship) as she fills out her NCAA paperwork for this coming school year.


She's filling out her own NCAA paperwork? That's cute. Very old school. How quaint of her.

[atoomer0881]

https://pilotonline.com/sports/columnist/harry-minium/unc-s-arrogance-over-academic-scandal-has-tainted-the-school/article_18fc6af4-f808-53e6-b107-ca46fb2a1e6a.html

Last 2 paragraphs of the article are somewhat interesting:

Carolina won two national championships while basketball players were taking fake classes. The Tar Heels also won bowl games in football and ACC championships in other sports. Some or all of those championships could be forfeited.

I doubt things will go that far. But if the NCAA fails to levy tough penalties on the Tar Heels, it forfeits any credibility as a neutral arbiter of fair play.

He says he doubts things will go that far (having some or all championships forfeited) but then says NCAA fails to levy tough penalties, it forfeits credibility. Well which is it? If he wants the NCAA to levy tough penalties, then they have to "go far" in vacating championships. Like I don't know what this guy would accept as being a tough penalty if he doubts "things will go that far."

[Henderson]

Last 2 paragraphs of the article are somewhat interesting:


He says he doubts things will go that far (having some or all championships forfeited) but then says NCAA fails to levy tough penalties, it forfeits credibility. Well which is it? If he wants the NCAA to levy tough penalties, then they have to "go far" in vacating championships. Like I don't know what this guy would accept as being a tough penalty if he doubts "things will go that far."

I don't understand your unclarity. He said he thinks UNC should get hammered, probably won't be, and anything less than a severe punishment would call into question the NCAA's reason for being.

That sounds exactly like 95% of this thread.

[MarkD83]

So if the fake classes started in 1993 why is the 1993 championship not in danger

[BD80]

https://pilotonline.com/sports/columnist/harry-minium/unc-s-arrogance-over-academic-scandal-has-tainted-the-school/article_18fc6af4-f808-53e6-b107-ca46fb2a1e6a.html

Compelling argument. But way too reliant on common sense. This is the NCAA and unc we are talking about.


So if the fake classes started in 1993 why is the 1993 championship not in danger

Because 1993 courses did not impact the eligibility of players on the 1993 team. They were eligible even if they failed the spring 1993 courses, they merely needed to be enrolled in spring classes.

[MarkD83]

Compelling argument. But way too reliant on common sense. This is the NCAA and unc we are talking about.



Because 1993 courses did not impact the eligibility of players on the 1993 team. t were eligible even if they failed the spring 1993 courses, they merely needed to be enrolled in spring classes.

However being enrolled in the class is an impermissible benefit. I read this to be similar to accepting a bag of cash. They got the benefit during the semester they won a championship so they are ineligible

[devildeac]

Compelling argument. But way too reliant on common sense. This is the NCAA and unc we are talking about.



Because 1993 courses did not impact the eligibility of players on the 1993 team. They were eligible even if they failed the spring 1993 courses, they merely needed to be enrolled in spring classes.

True, but not true. IIRC, this @#$% started in 1988/89, granted on a smaller scale, therefore, should still be applicable. However, I think it's highly improbable (? impossible) the NCAA will go this far back due to a) statute of limitations and b) dean is sacred. But, if they were to listen to merlindevildog, I'd certainly support them ;).

[MarkD83]

True, but not true. IIRC, this @#$% started in 1988/89, granted on a smaller scale, therefore, should still be applicable. However, I think it's highly improbable (? impossible) the NCAA will go this far back due to a) statute of limitations and b) dean is sacred. But, if they were to listen to merlindevildog, I'd certainly support them ;).

I would love to see the NCAA add 1993 to the championships in danger just to see how fast unc would throw Roy under the bus to protect dean

[devildeac]

I would love to see the NCAA add 1993 to the championships in danger just to see how fast unc would throw Roy under the bus to protect dean

As an elected Mt. Hatemore representative, I admire your thinking, but, don't see how that could happen. I can see how they've done that with WBB and Boxill but, the chart I have an image of but can't recall all the details, stretches from 1988/89 to 2010/11 without any gaps so both dean and roy would have to be implicated, along with Gut and D'oh, my favorite unc MBB coach ever ;).

[MarkD83]

As an elected Mt. Hatemore representative, I admire your thinking, but, don't see how that could happen. I can see how they've done that with WBB and Boxill but, the chart I have an image of but can't recall all the details, stretches from 1988/89 to 2010/11 without any gaps so both dean and roy would have to be implicated, along with Gut and D'oh, my favorite unc MBB coach ever ;).

I see this as more of a closed door negotiation. At the COI with Roy present the NCAA threatens to extend the penalties to 1988 if unc threatens to sue. Unc counters with "you can take Roy's titles but don't touch deans. Roy then goes beserk and we would never know

[devildeac]

I see this as more of a closed door negotiation. At the COI with Roy present the NCAA threatens to extend the penalties to 1988 if unc threatens to sue. Unc counters with "you can take Roy's titles but don't touch deans. Roy then goes beserk and we would never know

I can understand your thought processes/hopes now. Oh, to be a fly on the wall at the Gaylord Hotel in about 16-17 days...

[PackMan97]

Compelling argument. But way too reliant on common sense. This is the NCAA and unc we are talking about.



Because 1993 courses did not impact the eligibility of players on the 1993 team. They were eligible even if they failed the spring 1993 courses, they merely needed to be enrolled in spring classes.

It would impact whether or not they were enrolled as full-time students or not. If they didn't have 12 hours of real credit they weren't eligible to compete.

[moonpie23]

would there be anything illegal about planting, say, a go pro with sound. somewhere in the meeting room on the 14th? (asking for a friend)

[devildeac]

would there be anything illegal about planting, say, a go pro with sound. somewhere in the meeting room on the 14th? (asking for a friend)

You could probably send that friend Russian over there to accomplish that for you. ;)

[atoomer0881]

I don't understand your unclarity. He said he thinks UNC should get hammered, probably won't be, and anything less than a severe punishment would call into question the NCAA's reason for being.

That sounds exactly like 95% of this thread.

Hmmm I suppose I may have misunderstood what he wrote. I guess my initial interpretation of what he said was that while he thinks tough penalties need to be levied against UNC (and if they aren't then the NCAA loses credibility), he doesn't think it will go as far as vacating former championships. So I suppose I had read that as he would accept something less than vacating championships but still consider it to be "tough penalties." Perhaps I misunderstood his true intent.

[UrinalCake]

would there be anything illegal about planting, say, a go pro with sound. somewhere in the meeting room on the 14th? (asking for a friend)

I might need to invest in a janitor uniform to use for those two days

7554

[Uncle Drew]

LONG time reader, wanted some opinions. I've been reading posts on the EKF for so long I know many of your stances in regard to college basketball (and football) related subjects.

I have two questions regarding UNC and I'll begin with one about Dean Smith. If my memory serves me correctly there are more than a few posters that think / thought highly of Mr. Smith. If the AFAM accusations are true; we believe they are and they have all but admitted to as much, does it alter your opinion of him? Do you think he didn't know? Do you think he just didn't want to know? We all realize Dean Smith was beginning to wind down his career, maybe he wasn't as vigilant as he might have been in the past? Or do you believe he knew, fake classes were going on long before it was uncovered and were perhaps going on via another education department? In short, has the scandal changed the way you now view him?

Back in the day I and many others used to buy The ACC Basketball Handbook. They were great at recapping the previous year and prepare you for the new season.I wish I had many on my old ones from the 80's. I'm almost positive a high percentage of their players majored in "Communications". (They actually used to list player majors in magazines and occasionally on TV.) I would not be surprised if they'd been doing this before AFAM. I think we can all say "The Carolina" way and "Public Ivy" monikers are punch lines to bad jokes. I can't help but wonder if ESPN would still have Dean rated the #1 coach of all time in any sport now like they did years ago.

My second question, we're all REALLY wanting them to get punished severely. (AT LEAST one banner needs to come down, anything less than that...they skated.) Obviously we'll be devastated if UNC wins in the end after all the lawsuits, God forbid. But how much backlash would you expect from other universities, fans, the media? I know UNC fans think they will win in the court system on a technicality. How do fans of other universities feel about the scandal? It's hard for me to gauge opposing fan's opinions on the matter. If UNC won could their be an "OJ effect" where schools turn on UNC even though they were found not guilty? If they win their case against the NCAA (Yes, I know we haven't even heard IF they will be hammered yet.) it will render the NCAA a Doberman Pinscher with dentures...all bark, no bite.

As a Duke fan I can still say I'm proud of the growth our guys gain from an actual education. I even see it in one and dones over the course of a season, but it's a beautiful thing to watch over a player's four year career. Senior Quinn Cook's decision making, abilities and leadership grew every season. Zoubek waited three and half seasons to show he could rebound with anyone and intentionally miss a free throw. Grayson Allen has the chance to have that kind of year for us, if his head is on straight and he stays healthy.

Thanks to all members for the years of information, interesting reading and the occasional heated argument; quite entertaining. Peace unto all of you and yours...

[BLPOG]

LONG time reader, wanted some opinions. I've been reading posts on the EKF for so long I know many of your stances in regard to college basketball (and football) related subjects.

I have two questions regarding UNC and I'll begin with one about Dean Smith. If my memory serves me correctly there are more than a few posters that think / thought highly of Mr. Smith. If the AFAM accusations are true; we believe they are and they have all but admitted to as much, does it alter your opinion of him? Do you think he didn't know? Do you think he just didn't want to know? We all realize Dean Smith was beginning to wind down his career, maybe he wasn't as vigilant as he might have been in the past? Or do you believe he knew, fake classes were going on long before it was uncovered and were perhaps going on via another education department? In short, has the scandal changed the way you now view him?

Back in the day I and many others used to buy The ACC Basketball Handbook. They were great at recapping the previous year and prepare you for the new season.I wish I had many on my old ones from the 80's. I'm almost positive a high percentage of their players majored in "Communications". (They actually used to list player majors in magazines and occasionally on TV.) I would not be surprised if they'd been doing this before AFAM. I think we can all say "The Carolina" way and "Public Ivy" monikers are punch lines to bad jokes. I can't help but wonder if ESPN would still have Dean rated the #1 coach of all time in any sport now like they did years ago.

My second question, we're all REALLY wanting them to get punished severely. (AT LEAST one banner needs to come down, anything less than that...they skated.) Obviously we'll be devastated if UNC wins in the end after all the lawsuits, God forbid. But how much backlash would you expect from other universities, fans, the media? I know UNC fans think they will win in the court system on a technicality. How do fans of other universities feel about the scandal? It's hard for me to gauge opposing fan's opinions on the matter. If UNC won could their be an "OJ effect" where schools turn on UNC even though they were found not guilty? If they win their case against the NCAA (Yes, I know we haven't even heard IF they will be hammered yet.) it will render the NCAA a Doberman Pinscher with dentures...all bark, no bite.

As a Duke fan I can still say I'm proud of the growth our guys gain from an actual education. I even see it in one and dones over the course of a season, but it's a beautiful thing to watch over a player's four year career. Senior Quinn Cook's decision making, abilities and leadership grew every season. Zoubek waited three and half seasons to show he could rebound with anyone and intentionally miss a free throw. Grayson Allen has the chance to have that kind of year for us, if his head is on straight and he stays healthy.

Thanks to all members for the years of information, interesting reading and the occasional heated argument; quite entertaining. Peace unto all of you and yours...

Dean knew. He was the progenitor of the scam in its initial, lesser incarnation.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

LONG time reader, wanted some opinions. I've been reading posts on the EKF for so long I know many of your stances in regard to college basketball (and football) related subjects.

I have two questions regarding UNC and I'll begin with one about Dean Smith. If my memory serves me correctly there are more than a few posters that think / thought highly of Mr. Smith. If the AFAM accusations are true; we believe they are and they have all but admitted to as much, does it alter your opinion of him? Do you think he didn't know? Do you think he just didn't want to know? We all realize Dean Smith was beginning to wind down his career, maybe he wasn't as vigilant as he might have been in the past? Or do you believe he knew, fake classes were going on long before it was uncovered and were perhaps going on via another education department? In short, has the scandal changed the way you now view him?

Back in the day I and many others used to buy The ACC Basketball Handbook. They were great at recapping the previous year and prepare you for the new season.I wish I had many on my old ones from the 80's. I'm almost positive a high percentage of their players majored in "Communications". (They actually used to list player majors in magazines and occasionally on TV.) I would not be surprised if they'd been doing this before AFAM. I think we can all say "The Carolina" way and "Public Ivy" monikers are punch lines to bad jokes. I can't help but wonder if ESPN would still have Dean rated the #1 coach of all time in any sport now like they did years ago.

My second question, we're all REALLY wanting them to get punished severely. (AT LEAST one banner needs to come down, anything less than that...they skated.) Obviously we'll be devastated if UNC wins in the end after all the lawsuits, God forbid. But how much backlash would you expect from other universities, fans, the media? I know UNC fans think they will win in the court system on a technicality. How do fans of other universities feel about the scandal? It's hard for me to gauge opposing fan's opinions on the matter. If UNC won could their be an "OJ effect" where schools turn on UNC even though they were found not guilty? If they win their case against the NCAA (Yes, I know we haven't even heard IF they will be hammered yet.) it will render the NCAA a Doberman Pinscher with dentures...all bark, no bite.

As a Duke fan I can still say I'm proud of the growth our guys gain from an actual education. I even see it in one and dones over the course of a season, but it's a beautiful thing to watch over a player's four year career. Senior Quinn Cook's decision making, abilities and leadership grew every season. Zoubek waited three and half seasons to show he could rebound with anyone and intentionally miss a free throw. Grayson Allen has the chance to have that kind of year for us, if his head is on straight and he stays healthy.

Thanks to all members for the years of information, interesting reading and the occasional heated argument; quite entertaining. Peace unto all of you and yours...

I will speak to your first question in regards to Dean - yes, if it happened on his watch, it changes my opinion of him. This is regardless of if he "knew," mostly because: A) If he didn't know, he should have known, and B) If he didn't know, it was likely willful ignorance. If Dean put his hands over his ears and walked out of a room when certain topics came up, he is far from innocent.

I would guess that my general opinion of Dean is/has been higher than most here - or at least higher than most here would admit. His role in this debacle puts a huge dent in his legacy for me. If teams aren't playing with the same set of rules, then the results are null and void.

I can't begin to guess how UNC fans/alums will react to final rulings. I suspect that most will be upset - either with the NCAA with their ruling, or, with the UNC administration for allowing the whole thing to occur.

Duke fans will be upset that the NCAA didn't do more, regardless of the verdict.

[moonpie23]

Duke fans will be upset that the NCAA didn't do more, regardless of the verdict.

not necessarily, if 05 and 09 come down, with a few year of post season ban, i'm good.....a hefty fine does nothing (alums will scratch that check) and scholarship reductions is, meh.


you have to remember where the obese arrogance, and nose thumbing self-righteousness resides.......in those banners......NOTHING is more important than the banners.....look at what they've done to protect them.


oh, and it's not over.....even with the penalties, they will continue to fight...

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

not necessarily, if 05 and 09 come down, with a few year of post season ban, i'm good...a hefty fine does nothing (alums will scratch that check) and scholarship reductions is, meh.


you have to remember where the obese arrogance, and nose thumbing self-righteousness resides...in those banners...NOTHING is more important than the banners...look at what they've done to protect them.


oh, and it's not over...even with the penalties, they will continue to fight...
If even just one of those banners comes down, I'm good - because they will be the only member of the NCAA holding that dubious honor (in basketball) and everyone will remember it forever.

[OldPhiKap]

not necessarily, if 05 and 09 come down, with a few year of post season ban, i'm good....a hefty fine does nothing (alums will scratch that check) and scholarship reductions is, meh.


you have to remember where the obese arrogance, and nose thumbing self-righteousness resides....in those banners...NOTHING is more important than the banners....look at what they've done to protect them.




This. All. Day.

[English]

If even just one of those banners comes down, I'm good - because they will be the only member of the NCAA holding that dubious honor (in basketball) and everyone will remember it forever.

Rick Pitino's 2013 Louisville Cardinals Natty Champs* squad says hello from the near future.

[flyingdutchdevil]

This. All. Day.

Does this mean the 17 natty is legit? :(