What Penalties will the NCAA give the Cheats?

[richardjackson199]

What penalties will the NCAA actually give to the cheats? You can pick multiple answers. Loss of 2005 and 2009 Natty options assume vacated wins.

There may be other better options to include. If so just let me know, and I can start a new poll. I have no clue what the NCAA can or will do in a situation like this.

I fear they keep all their banners, even though at least 2 should come down.

[ipatent]

You have to keep in mind that this involved players in multiple sports, so the death penalty in just one sport would seem unlikely. It wouldn't surprise me to see vacated wins across multiple teams. 2005 and/or 2009 could be at risk.

[richardjackson199]

You have to keep in mind that this involved players in multiple sports, so the death penalty in just one sport would seem unlikely. It wouldn't surprise me to see vacated wins across multiple teams. 2005 and/or 2009 could be at risk.

Does the NCAA have access to enough information to say that specific players were ineligible? That seems like what they would base vacated titles on. Everyone knows specific players on 2005 and 2009 teams should have been ineligible. McCants basically admitted UNC helped him cheat on ESPN.

But I'm afraid NCAA will say they don't have access to the transcripts. Hopefully I'm wrong, and maybe I am - I don't know enough about it.

[Duke95]

MBB: Vacate all wins during Crowder paper class scandal that involved athletes taking fake Crowder classes, including 2005 and 2009 titles.
1-2 year post-season ban, MBB/FB/WBB
3 scholarship losses in MBB.
5 scholarship losses FB.

[richardjackson199]

MBB: Vacate all wins during Crowder paper class scandal that involved athletes taking fake Crowder classes, including 2005 and 2009 titles.
1-2 year post-season ban, MBB/FB/WBB
3 scholarship losses in MBB.
5 scholarship losses FB.

I definitely think what you propose is exactly what should happen, plus the fines/probation.
I think it ends up 2 year post-season bans. I think they'll want to take the banners but will puss out. So to compensate, they'll make post-season bans 2 years.

[duke4ever19]

Question: Of the two titles -- 2005 and 2009 -- which is considered the most "tainted?"

I know McCants was a member of the '05 team and he has a lot of notoriety because he was vocal about the cheating, but that doesn't necessarily mean the 2005 team has the most skeletons in the closet.

[richardjackson199]

Question: Of the two titles -- 2005 and 2009 -- which is considered the most "tainted?"

I know McCants was a member of the '05 team and he has a lot of notoriety because he was vocal about the cheating, but that doesn't necessarily mean the 2005 team has the most skeletons in the closet.

I would say both are equally tainted.

[cbarry]

Anything less than the 2005 and 2009 MBB banners coming down = they skate = (unfortunately) the most likely outcome. The NCAA doesn't have the cajones to take 2 nattys from the Cheats, despite the egregious for 18+ years.

[plimnko]

if they do skate, EVERY team EVER penalized by the ncaa should have grounds to sue the ncaa for any revenue lost by the penalties imposed upon them. if what we've seen from the wainstein report and dan kane's articles in the n&o are even close to accurate, how can others be penalized and the cheat heels not? otherwise, the ncaa needs to be dissolved.

[cbarry]

I agree! But the NCAA will likely give them a few years of probation in a few sports, reductions in scholarships, post-season ban for a couple of years, blah blah blah, that allows the NCAA to say "we did something, fairly substantial." But to me, if you allow them to keep the 2005 and 2009 banners (as the NCAA surely will do), whatever penalty that is given to the Cheats is seen as a slap on the wrist.


if they do skate, EVERY team EVER penalized by the ncaa should have grounds to sue the ncaa for any revenue lost by the penalties imposed upon them. if what we've seen from the wainstein report and dan kane's articles in the n&o are even close to accurate, how can others be penalized and the cheat heels not? otherwise, the ncaa needs to be dissolved.

[Native]

I agree! But the NCAA will likely give them a few years of probation in a few sports, reductions in scholarships, post-season ban for a couple of years, blah blah blah, that allows the NCAA to say "we did something, fairly substantial." But to me, if you allow them to keep the 2005 and 2009 banners (as the NCAA surely will do), whatever penalty that is given to the Cheats is seen as a slap on the wrist.

This. The NCAA will do just enough to save face, and nothing more.

[duke2x]

My gut says that the NCAA would assess light probation/scholarship/show-cause penalties and let the 2005/2009/2017? banners stay if the NCAA was the only one with access to the transcripts. I'm really interested to hear how the NCAA justifies a decision to keep 2005. The public release of McCants's transcript made the invalidity of that title pretty clear, and the NCAA doesn't have to look at one minute of class content to justify removal. With that information public, you will have every Alabama, Oklahoma, Kentucky, etc. adopting the UNC curricular model to win in football and basketball.

[PackMan97]

All of the above, except skating. UNC is going to get nailed to the cross. We will talk about UNC for decades like folks have talked about SMU.

[Olympic Fan]

I will go on record and bet serious money (or pie?) that (1) no death penalty and (2) they will not skate.

But where do the penalties fall in between?

I am very confident that UNC as a school gets probation and a hefty fine because the failures here are institutional (the Lack of Institutional Control charge is a lock). But how will that translate to individual sports -- especially men's basketball and football? I know there are UNC apologists who suggest that football is safe because they were already penalized in 2011, but that was for a different issue (mostly involving agents and cheating tutors). Football has NOT been slapped for the AFAM scandal.

The NCAA has two penalty options available: they can go into the past and vacate wins or they can look to the future and make scholarship cuts and impose postseason bans. If they fnd UNC guilty of the current charges, I believe they will do both.

I think that after the Louisville case (which looks like it's going to cost Louisville its 2013 national title), that UNC's 2005 and 2009 titles are in jeopardy. Their 2007 and 2008 ACC championships are also in jeopardy. The UNC football team doesn't have a lot to vacate (their 2015 Coastal Division title is safe) except a lot of football wins in the first decade of this century.

Moving forward, I think there will be scholarship reductions in both sports ... I'm less certain about postseason bans, but I would guess one year in both football and basketball.

Also, Roy Williams will be suspended -- for up to nine games. That's under the new rule that says that a coach can be penalized for violations that occur under their watch, whether they knew about it or not. Larry Brown, Jim Boeheim and Rick Pitino have all been nailed for things the NCAA never proved they knew.

UNC is unlikely to get the penalty we think they deserve, but I strongly believe they will be hammered -- the school for sure, but also in football and men's basketball -- they will have games vacated, scholarships lost, a head coach suspended (not Fedora, he arrived after the scope of the inquiry) ... and, the one I'm less certain of, at least a brief post season ban in both sports.

PS I know many on this board think the NCAA is corrupt and will protect UNC. I disagree. I think the NCAA is often incompetent and inefficient, but I honestly think the people I know in the organization are genuine in their attempts to keep college sports clean. The UNC case does cut to the core of the organization, since the NCAA is founded on the idea that the individual schools will act in concert to police themselves and will cooperate to punish any wrongdoing. The UNC attitude -- yes, we cheated, but you can't penalize us because of a technicality in the rules -- will destroy the NCAA is allowed to prosper. If I'm wrong and UNC does not get heavy penalties, I'll surrender to the cynics and join in your contempt for the NCAA. But I think they will surprise you.

[budwom]

^ though running the risk of a jinx, I tend to agree. The case is so egregious that they (NCAA) should just go out of business if they don't levy a hefty penalty. Plus there is reason to believe the delaying, denying and obfuscating
tactics of unc (as they whine about the length of the case) has made few friends within the NCAA. But we'll see...

[richardjackson199]

I will go on record and bet serious money (or pie?) that (1) no death penalty and (2) they will not skate.

But where do the penalties fall in between?

I am very confident that UNC as a school gets probation and a hefty fine because the failures here are institutional (the Lack of Institutional Control charge is a lock). But how will that translate to individual sports -- especially men's basketball and football? I know there are UNC apologists who suggest that football is safe because they were already penalized in 2011, but that was for a different issue (mostly involving agents and cheating tutors). Football has NOT been slapped for the AFAM scandal.

The NCAA has two penalty options available: they can go into the past and vacate wins or they can look to the future and make scholarship cuts and impose postseason bans. If they fnd UNC guilty of the current charges, I believe they will do both.

I think that after the Louisville case (which looks like it's going to cost Louisville its 2013 national title), that UNC's 2005 and 2009 titles are in jeopardy. Their 2007 and 2008 ACC championships are also in jeopardy. The UNC football team doesn't have a lot to vacate (their 2015 Coastal Division title is safe) except a lot of football wins in the first decade of this century.

Moving forward, I think there will be scholarship reductions in both sports ... I'm less certain about postseason bans, but I would guess one year in both football and basketball.

Also, Roy Williams will be suspended -- for up to nine games. That's under the new rule that says that a coach can be penalized for violations that occur under their watch, whether they knew about it or not. Larry Brown, Jim Boeheim and Rick Pitino have all been nailed for things the NCAA never proved they knew.

UNC is unlikely to get the penalty we think they deserve, but I strongly believe they will be hammered -- the school for sure, but also in football and men's basketball -- they will have games vacated, scholarships lost, a head coach suspended (not Fedora, he arrived after the scope of the inquiry) ... and, the one I'm less certain of, at least a brief post season ban in both sports.

PS I know many on this board think the NCAA is corrupt and will protect UNC. I disagree. I think the NCAA is often incompetent and inefficient, but I honestly think the people I know in the organization are genuine in their attempts to keep college sports clean. The UNC case does cut to the core of the organization, since the NCAA is founded on the idea that the individual schools will act in concert to police themselves and will cooperate to punish any wrongdoing. The UNC attitude -- yes, we cheated, but you can't penalize us because of a technicality in the rules -- will destroy the NCAA is allowed to prosper. If I'm wrong and UNC does not get heavy penalties, I'll surrender to the cynics and join in your contempt for the NCAA. But I think they will surprise you.

I agree with most everything you said. I can be about as cynical as they come, but in this case, I do believe the NCAA wants to get this right and punish UNC severely.

The one thing you said that surprises me, and in a good way, is that you seem more confident about the vacated wins and loss of both Natty's than the postseason bans. Are you not afraid that the NCAA will say they can't prove exactly which players were ineligible without seeing the transcripts, because UNC isn't giving them that information and those players aren't talking. Thus they leave the Natty's up because they know UNC will sue, and maybe win if they try to take the banners away? Like Tom Cruise lawyer said in A Few Good Men - "It doesn't matter what I know, it only matters what I can prove." (or something like that). Or do you think the NCAA actually has enough to vacate those wins and take down the banners? I just don't know enough about it.

I think the post-season ban seems likely 1 year if banners come down, 2 years if they don't. Why wouldn't they do that? I guess the post-season ban punishes players who were not involved. But at this point all those players know they are risking that by choosing to play for UNC, which is why Roy can't land any more 5 stars right now.

I think you're definitely right about suspending Ol Roy for about 9 games. I can't wait to see his sanctimonious reaction to that. I should have included that option in the poll - I forgot about suspending the coach for all "that junk."

It was refreshing to read your post and see some optimism. I was surprised that after starting to get a decent sample of DBR readership that barely 30% thought either banner would come down. I figured I might be in the minority when I voted that.

If the NCAA does something close to what you predict, I will be impressed. If they don't, UNC's sickening strategy will have worked. The massive delay allowed them to win another Natty, and they'll keep the ones they had.

[Olympic Fan]

The one thing you said that surprises me, and in a good way, is that you seem more confident about the vacated wins and loss of both Natty's than the postseason bans. Are you not afraid that the NCAA will say they can't prove exactly which players were ineligible without seeing the transcripts, because UNC isn't giving them that information and those players aren't talking. Thus they leave the Natty's up because they know UNC will sue, and maybe win if they try to take the banners away? Like Tom Cruise lawyer said in A Few Good Men - "It doesn't matter what I know, it only matters what I can prove." (or something like that). Or do you think the NCAA actually has enough to vacate those wins and take down the banners? I just don't know enough about it.

But the NCAA DOES see the transcripts ... UNC has used FERPA to protect its cheating from public scrutiny, but that doesn't apply to the NCAA. Every scholar-athlete (as much as I gag to use that term to refer to an UNC player) has to sign a waiver of his FERPA rights that specifically allows the NCAA to examine his transcripts in the case of alleged violation.

If the NCAA doesn't rip down the banners, it won't be because they don't have access to the transcripts.

[richardjackson199]

Found it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVYcpO6Mgk

But I also live in the dream world, and I don't know the law or the NCAA.

I hope they have enough to vacate those wins. McCants was laughing that he got Deans List for doing nothing. And UNC has a bar named after Hansbrough's 4 year attendance in his Swahili class - He's Not Here. They have another bar called The Library, which is the closest any of them got to somewhere they could do research for their sham paper classes.

[richardjackson199]

But the NCAA DOES see the transcripts ... UNC has used FERPA to protect its cheating from public scrutiny, but that doesn't apply to the NCAA. Every scholar-athlete (as much as I gag to use that term to refer to an UNC player) has to sign a waiver of his FERPA rights that specifically allows the NCAA to examine his transcripts in the case of alleged violation.

If the NCAA doesn't rip down the banners, it won't be because they don't have access to the transcripts.

Awesome - thanks! I didn't know that.

Those banners really are in jeopardy.

I just can't imagine the NCAA and Sankey going light on the cheats after they basically tried to give the NCAA the middle finger. How stupid was that after the NCAA had released a lighter amended NOA that didn't even mention men's hoops?

[plimnko]

i don't really care if or think the cheats will receive the death penalty. i would be happy with vacating ALL wins, removing all championships (acc and national) banners will playing ineligible players, receive fines, loss of scholarships and a couple of years ban from post season play. and after all the stalling, denying, and other delaying tactics, i would like to see a public allocution of what they knowingly did over the past 18 or so years.

also, there needs to be an asterisk in the record books indicating hansbrough passed jj in scoring while cheating and playing in games in which he was academically ineligible.

[richardjackson199]

i don't really care if or think the cheats will receive the death penalty. i would be happy with vacating ALL wins, removing all championships (acc and national) banners will playing ineligible players, receive fines, loss of scholarships and a couple of years ban from post season play. and after all the stalling, denying, and other delaying tactics, i would like to see a public allocution of what they knowingly did over the past 18 or so years.

also, there needs to be an asterisk in the record books indicating hansbrough passed jj in scoring while cheating and playing in games in which he was academically ineligible.

I'm with you brother. If there is any justice, those penalties will happen. Don't hold your breath waiting for any admission of guilt from the cheats. They will see themselves as wrongfully persecuted victims of a witch hunt.

If they somehow escape with more slap on the wrist type treatment, all outside the dump will see those banners and records as bogus. Regardless, their once proud reputation will never be the same.

After the NCAA COI ruling, I don't know how much lawsuits and appeals could delay enforcement of the penalties. For future-oriented stuff like post-season bans, I expect the cheats to just get it over with so they can try to get back to recruiting without the NCAA shadow of uncertainty warding off studs.

But I could see something like a 2-year post-season ban and 9 game suspension sending ol Roy into imminent retirement after this season. He is not going to keep winning at the clip he has been used to after Berry and Pinson leave this year. And that man does not lose well.

Then if Roy leaves, UNC may not be the attractive job it once was with the sanctions in place. It could take them a long time to recover from this, and deservedly so. They spent a very long time cheating, and it's starting to feel almost as long that they have delayed receiving consequences.

[Duke95]

Question: Of the two titles -- 2005 and 2009 -- which is considered the most "tainted?"

I know McCants was a member of the '05 team and he has a lot of notoriety because he was vocal about the cheating, but that doesn't necessarily mean the 2005 team has the most skeletons in the closet.

2005 is more tainted, considering the enrollment levels in Crowder fake classes.

[Papa John]

They should get item 1 on the list, but I tend to think they ultimately get hit with items 2 through 6.

[elvis14]

2005 is more tainted, considering the enrollment levels in Crowder fake classes.

Yes but the NCAA's history says that all it takes is 1 ineligible player to vacate wins (see USC and Bush)

I don't see what's all that complicated here in regards to the past:

1) Get a list of all the "students" that took the fake classes
2) Identify all the athletes in these classes
3) For each athlete remove the fake grade and determine if they would have been eligible anyway
4) That should leave us with a list of ineligible "student" athletes for each year
5) Every game these athletes played in is vacated, if won, losses can stay

That takes care of the past. Going forward, they won't get what they should get (SMU) but we might see the following:

1) Loss of scholarships in all sports that significantly participated (this 100% includes mens hoops)
2) Post season ban in all sports that significantly participated (multiple years, probably 2 but should be 5)
3) UNCheat has to pay back the $$ they received for post season participation by any team vacating wins
4) Coaches should be suspended as long as possible in all sports that significantly participated (frankly, UNCheat should have fired them already)
5) UNCheat should have to pay the NCAA's legal fees for this mess

That should do it although I feel like I'm forgetting something. Note one reason that I believe UNCheat should be punished VERY harshly in this is that they have not operated in good faith since the cheating came to light. They have spend $20 million in lawyers and millions on marketing/PR firms to delay, deny, deflect and keep their blind sheep blind. The NCAA tried to throw them a bone last year and they gave the NCAA the finger (thus the new/latest NOA from the NCAA striking back). They deserve to have that finger shoved all the way up their collectives a**es.

[devildeac]

Yes but the NCAA's history says that all it takes is 1 ineligible player to vacate wins (see USC and Bush)

I don't see what's all that complicated here in regards to the past:

1) Get a list of all the "students" that took the fake classes
2) Identify all the athletes in these classes
3) For each athlete remove the fake grade and determine if they would have been eligible anyway
4) That should leave us with a list of ineligible "student" athletes for each year
5) Every game these athletes played in is vacated, if won, losses can stay

That takes care of the past. Going forward, they won't get what they should get (SMU) but we might see the following:

1) Loss of scholarships in all sports that significantly participated (this 100% includes mens hoops)
2) Post season ban in all sports that significantly participated (multiple years, probably 2 but should be 5)
3) UNCheat has to pay back the $$ they received for post season participation by any team vacating wins
4) Coaches should be suspended as long as possible in all sports that significantly participated (frankly, UNCheat should have fired them already)
5) UNCheat should have to pay the NCAA's legal fees for this mess

That should do it although I feel like I'm forgetting something. Note one reason that I believe UNCheat should be punished VERY harshly in this is that they have not operated in good faith since the cheating came to light. They have spend $20 million in lawyers and millions on marketing/PR firms to delay, deny, deflect and keep their blind sheep blind. The NCAA tried to throw them a bone last year and they gave the NCAA the finger (thus the new/latest NOA from the NCAA striking back). They deserve to have that finger shoved all the way up their collectives a**es.

I'd concur with your line items above. The only thing you may have overlooked is/are the fine/s that the NCAA can assess on the r*ms club, err, *nc, based on charts/guidelines that swood and likely others have posted in the current and many prior *nc cheating threads. Should/could be millions. And millions more.

[moonpie23]

split all the hairs you want....if 05 and 09 stay, they skated....

[swood1000]

I'd concur with your line items above. The only thing you may have overlooked is/are the fine/s that the NCAA can assess on the r*ms club, err, *nc, based on charts/guidelines that swood and likely others have posted in the current and many prior *nc cheating threads. Should/could be millions. And millions more.

Don’t forget the recruiting visit restrictions:

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7614&stc=1

Keep in mind that these penalty guidelines went into effect 8/1/2016 so they do not govern this case. But they probably represent something reasonable. There can also be Show-Cause Orders but I don’t expect to see that for MBB. Wayne Walden would be a likely candidate but (a) he was not charged, and (b) if the COI were inclined to find some violation against him anyway they would have requested his presence at the hearing, which they did not.

I also don’t expect to see any Head Coach Restrictions or suspension.


11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach. It shall be the responsibility of an institution’s head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.

The Syracuse decision provided an interpretation of this, saying that within a coach’s responsibility to promote an atmosphere of compliance “rested the presumption that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of all assistant coaches and administrators. That presumption is rebuttable.”

The head coach can be charged under this Bylaw if it can be shown that (a) he did not promote an atmosphere of compliance, or that (b) one of his assistants committed a violation. Boeheim and Pitino each went down because someone who answered to him was caught red-handed and the coach was not able to rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the conduct of his assistants. In the case of Roy Williams, none of his subordinates was even charged. Since Wayne Walden was not charged in the NOA, and is unlikely to be found guilty by the COI, it’s hard to see how Roy Williams (who also was not charged) will nevertheless be found guilty by the COI. If Roy didn’t promote an atmosphere of compliance then this would show itself in infractions committed by the staff, but nobody on the MBB staff will be found guilty of an infraction. I think we’ll have to content ourselves with reductions to his total games won as well as to his reputation.

[richardjackson199]

Don’t forget the recruiting visit restrictions:

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7614&stc=1

Keep in mind that these penalty guidelines went into effect 8/1/2016 so they do not govern this case. But they probably represent something reasonable. There can also be Show-Cause Orders but I don’t expect to see that for MBB. Wayne Walden would be a likely candidate but (a) he was not charged, and (b) if the COI were inclined to find some violation against him anyway they would have requested his presence at the hearing, which they did not.

I also don’t expect to see any Head Coach Restrictions or suspension.



The Syracuse decision provided an interpretation of this, saying that within a coach’s responsibility to promote an atmosphere of compliance “rested the presumption that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of all assistant coaches and administrators. That presumption is rebuttable.”

The head coach can be charged under this Bylaw if it can be shown that (a) he did not promote an atmosphere of compliance, or that (b) one of his assistants committed a violation. Boeheim and Pitino each went down because someone who answered to him was caught red-handed and the coach was not able to rebut the presumption that he was responsible for the conduct of his assistants. In the case of Roy Williams, none of his subordinates was even charged. Since Wayne Walden was not charged in the NOA, and is unlikely to be found guilty by the COI, it’s hard to see how Roy Williams (who also was not charged) will nevertheless be found guilty by the COI. If Roy didn’t promote an atmosphere of compliance then this would show itself in infractions committed by the staff, but nobody on the MBB staff will be found guilty of an infraction. I think we’ll have to content ourselves with reductions to his total games won as well as to his reputation.

Might be more fun to have him coaching on the sidelines and see his reactions to his team losing.

I'll content myself as long as they reduce his win total by at least 2 games - one in 4/2005 and another in 4/2009. I suspect they'll vacate several more. Throw in some post-season bans along with the other stuff, and the cheats will never get over these penalties.

Roy's reputation is toast no matter what happens. Roy knew.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Selfishly, I mostly hope for a post season ban of two years for the impact on transfers and recruiting. People go to Duke, UNC, and other blue blood programs to play in March.

[OldPhiKap]

split all the hairs you want...if 05 and 09 stay, they skated...

This.

And, they skate.

[PackMan97]

I they compete in any NCAA sport over the next 5 years, they skate.

[CameronBlue]

There's this nagging notion of proportionality that keeps me up late at night, that and our cat Xerxes' nightly pillaging of the larder. While losing the banners would surely be painful, it would be swift as well, too swift to atone for 20 years of subterfuge that created a cohort of victims worthy of psychiatric study #NCStatefanslivesmatter. This about time served. This about generational pain passed onto the next generation. This about being forced to swallow a steady diet of "The Carolina Way" bushwa year over year. This is about NC State. They're the Wolfpack, not the Fighting Scarab Beetles. They are the fans I think about most often when Bilas embarks upon some usually specious discussion about just how UNC would be victimized by NCAA penalties.

One way to "level" the playing field and give other programs the opportunity to win back a measure of equality, at least in the win-loss category is to assess a combination of scholarship reductions and a post-season ban that is truly onerous but one that reflects proportionality while minimizing the innocent victim body count. Many have suggested a one or two year post-season ban and a scholarship reduction usually <5. I'm not familiar with NCAA rules, are there proscribed limits? Ban UNC from post-season play for 5 years and reduce scholarships by 10, adding back 2 each year for 5 years. Make them the promise that the NCAA will review the UNC program for compliance at the end of year 3 and offer redress if deserved. Let them keep the banners which is what this kerfuffle is really all about. That's not skating. UNC will be appropriately chastened and it addresses the issue of proportionality--and I may finally get some sleep.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There's this nagging notion of proportionality that keeps me up late at night, that and our cat Xerxes' nightly pillaging of the larder. While losing the banners would surely be painful, it would be swift as well, too swift to atone for 20 years of subterfuge that created a cohort of victims worthy of psychiatric study #NCStatefanslivesmatter. This about time served. This about generational pain passed onto the next generation. This about being forced to swallow a steady diet of "The Carolina Way" bushwa year over year. This is about NC State. They're the Wolfpack, not the Fighting Scarab Beetles. They are the fans I think about most often when Bilas embarks upon some usually specious discussion about just how UNC would be victimized by NCAA penalties.

One way to "level" the playing field and give other programs the opportunity to win back a measure of equality, at least in the win-loss category is to assess a combination of scholarship reductions and a post-season ban that is truly onerous but one that reflects proportionality while minimizing the innocent victim body count. Many have suggested a one or two year post-season ban and a scholarship reduction usually <5. I'm not familiar with NCAA rules, are there proscribed limits? Ban UNC from post-season play for 5 years and reduce scholarships by 10, adding back 2 each year for 5 years. Make them the promise that the NCAA will review the UNC program for compliance at the end of year 3 and offer redress if deserved. Let them keep the banners which is what this kerfuffle is really all about. That's not skating. UNC will be appropriately chastened and it addresses the issue of proportionality--and I may finally get some sleep.

For me personally, this would feel more like justice than simply pulling down banners. It would have a radical effect on the program and the culture of "sports first" that clearly precipitated this scandal.

[CameronBlue]

For me personally, this would feel more like justice than simply pulling down banners. It would have a radical effect on the program and the culture of "sports first" that clearly precipitated this scandal.

In two words you've succinctly hit upon what the penalties should really address, the "sports first" culture that is overtaking our institutions of higher learning.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I will go on record and bet serious money (or pie?) that (1) no death penalty and (2) they will not skate.

But where do the penalties fall in between?

I am very confident that UNC as a school gets probation and a hefty fine because the failures here are institutional (the Lack of Institutional Control charge is a lock). But how will that translate to individual sports -- especially men's basketball and football? I know there are UNC apologists who suggest that football is safe because they were already penalized in 2011, but that was for a different issue (mostly involving agents and cheating tutors). Football has NOT been slapped for the AFAM scandal.

The NCAA has two penalty options available: they can go into the past and vacate wins or they can look to the future and make scholarship cuts and impose postseason bans. If they fnd UNC guilty of the current charges, I believe they will do both.

I think that after the Louisville case (which looks like it's going to cost Louisville its 2013 national title), that UNC's 2005 and 2009 titles are in jeopardy. Their 2007 and 2008 ACC championships are also in jeopardy. The UNC football team doesn't have a lot to vacate (their 2015 Coastal Division title is safe) except a lot of football wins in the first decade of this century.

Moving forward, I think there will be scholarship reductions in both sports ... I'm less certain about postseason bans, but I would guess one year in both football and basketball.

Also, Roy Williams will be suspended -- for up to nine games. That's under the new rule that says that a coach can be penalized for violations that occur under their watch, whether they knew about it or not. Larry Brown, Jim Boeheim and Rick Pitino have all been nailed for things the NCAA never proved they knew.

UNC is unlikely to get the penalty we think they deserve, but I strongly believe they will be hammered -- the school for sure, but also in football and men's basketball -- they will have games vacated, scholarships lost, a head coach suspended (not Fedora, he arrived after the scope of the inquiry) ... and, the one I'm less certain of, at least a brief post season ban in both sports.

PS I know many on this board think the NCAA is corrupt and will protect UNC. I disagree. I think the NCAA is often incompetent and inefficient, but I honestly think the people I know in the organization are genuine in their attempts to keep college sports clean. The UNC case does cut to the core of the organization, since the NCAA is founded on the idea that the individual schools will act in concert to police themselves and will cooperate to punish any wrongdoing. The UNC attitude -- yes, we cheated, but you can't penalize us because of a technicality in the rules -- will destroy the NCAA is allowed to prosper. If I'm wrong and UNC does not get heavy penalties, I'll surrender to the cynics and join in your contempt for the NCAA. But I think they will surprise you.

Do people really think this? I'm like you: I think the NCAA is inconsistent and incompetent, but I don't think they favor UNC or are sleeping with UNC. They hammered Cuse and the Ville, two schools that generate a ton of cash for the NCAA. I find it hard to believe that the NCAA and UNC are in cahoots.

However, I did vote that I think UNC will stake. And mainly because the NCAA is inconsistent and incompetent.

[moonpie23]

Do people really think this? I'm like you: I think the NCAA is inconsistent and incompetent, but I don't think they favor UNC or are sleeping with UNC. They hammered Cuse and the Ville, two schools that generate a ton of cash for the NCAA. I find it hard to believe that the NCAA and UNC are in cahoots.

they are going to get HAMMERED!!!!!




However, I did vote that I think UNC will stake. And mainly because the NCAA is inconsistent and incompetent.

nahh, i'm just playing...


:)

[OldPhiKap]

I think that the NCAA will hand down a stiff penalty, and I do not think that they are afraid of UNC.

I don't see the banners coming down though. But I would be happy to be disappointed in that regard.

[swood1000]

There's this nagging notion of proportionality that keeps me up late at night, that and our cat Xerxes' nightly pillaging of the larder. While losing the banners would surely be painful, it would be swift as well, too swift to atone for 20 years of subterfuge that created a cohort of victims worthy of psychiatric study #NCStatefanslivesmatter. This about time served. This about generational pain passed onto the next generation. This about being forced to swallow a steady diet of "The Carolina Way" bushwa year over year. This is about NC State. They're the Wolfpack, not the Fighting Scarab Beetles. They are the fans I think about most often when Bilas embarks upon some usually specious discussion about just how UNC would be victimized by NCAA penalties.

One way to "level" the playing field and give other programs the opportunity to win back a measure of equality, at least in the win-loss category is to assess a combination of scholarship reductions and a post-season ban that is truly onerous but one that reflects proportionality while minimizing the innocent victim body count. Many have suggested a one or two year post-season ban and a scholarship reduction usually <5. I'm not familiar with NCAA rules, are there proscribed limits? Ban UNC from post-season play for 5 years and reduce scholarships by 10, adding back 2 each year for 5 years. Make them the promise that the NCAA will review the UNC program for compliance at the end of year 3 and offer redress if deserved. Let them keep the banners which is what this kerfuffle is really all about. That's not skating. UNC will be appropriately chastened and it addresses the issue of proportionality--and I may finally get some sleep.

The new penalty guidelines, generally said to be more severe than the old ones that are applicable in this case, call for a post-season ban of 1-4 years in the worst case, so five might be aiming a little high.

The new guidelines also call for a scholarship reduction of 10-25% in the worst case. If there are 13 MBB scholarships then reducing by ten amounts to a reduction of 77%. Might be a little ambitious. And what would you do about the scholarships already offered? Of course those athletes might be willing to avail themselves of the transfer option if the post-season ban covers the remainder of their college tenure.

[devildeac]

I they compete in any NCAA sport over the next 5 years, they skate.

Pretty harsh. I'd at least let both men's/women's swimming and diving teams compete. :p

[elvis14]

Do people really think this? I'm like you: I think the NCAA is inconsistent and incompetent, but I don't think they favor UNC or are sleeping with UNC. They hammered Cuse and the Ville, two schools that generate a ton of cash for the NCAA. I find it hard to believe that the NCAA and UNC are in cahoots.

However, I did vote that I think UNC will stake. And mainly because the NCAA is inconsistent and incompetent.

I think that the NCAA attempted to let UNCheat off easy last year. They produced a kinder gentler NOA for UNCheat and gave those cheating b@st@rds an easy way out...if they would step up and do the right thing. I think that UNCheat basically gave told the NCAA to go eff itself and the NCAA responded with a more appropriate, harsher NOA. So yes, I do think the NCAA favors UNCheat...and as such they gave UNCheat a chance to get off easy, a chance that other schools would not have been given.

Frankly, since their delay tactics worked and since they had players delay their careers to stay longer at UNCheat, in a sense they have already skated because of their success the last 2 years (sadly, it was a couple of years where there were no great teams...mostly because we were injured).

[sagegrouse]

The new penalty guidelines, generally said to be more severe than the old ones that are applicable in this case, call for a post-season ban of 1-4 years in the worst case, so five might be aiming a little high.

The new guidelines also call for a scholarship reduction of 10-25% in the worst case. If there are 13 MBB scholarships then reducing by ten amounts to a reduction of 77%. Might be a little ambitious. And what would you do about the scholarships already offered? Of course those athletes might be willing to avail themselves of the transfer option if the post-season ban covers the remainder of their college tenure.

SWood, NCAA math on scholarships is a bit different from what we learned in school. A reduction of "eight scholarships" in hoops means reducing the number of allowed scholarships from 13 to 11 for four years.

[sagegrouse]

I think that the NCAA will hand down a stiff penalty, and I do not think that they are afraid of UNC.

I don't see the banners coming down though. But I would be happy to be disappointed in that regard.

I am having a hard time voting. I believe UNC will get heavily penalized. But I think it will be two-step process: The first step will be institutional penalties on scholarships and post-season eligibility plus a hefty fine. The second step, occurring over the months following the initial penalties, will be to look at all student-athletes under suspicion and determine whether they were eligible to compete. If not, then every game and every championship in which an ineligible athlete participated would be voided.

[CameronBlue]

Pretty harsh. I'd at least let both men's/women's swimming and diving teams compete. :p

Fine. Let them compete, just don't let them fill the pool.

[devildeac]

Fine. Let them compete, just don't let them fill the pool.

Or, fill it with cement.

Hmm, reminds me of a joke...

[swood1000]

SWood, NCAA math on scholarships is a bit different from what we learned in school. A reduction of "eight scholarships" in hoops means reducing the number of allowed scholarships from 13 to 11 for four years.
I’m not sure that the OP intended your formulation. The proposal was to “reduce scholarships by 10, adding back 2 each year for 5 years.”

[swood1000]

Pretty harsh. I'd at least let both men's/women's swimming and diving teams compete. :p

Wayne Walden was the academic advisor for Men's Basketball, Men's & Women's Swimming and Diving, and Volleyball. He certainly got MBB athletes their fair share of paper classes. Do you think he stiffed the swimmers and divers? Maybe they were not as needy.

[sagegrouse]

I’m not sure that the OP intended your formulation. The proposal was to “reduce scholarships by 10, adding back 2 each year for 5 years.”

Could be. I am agnostic on the likely penalties (more, of course, is better), but if the COI comes out with a "reduction of ten scholarships in basketball," it will mean what I said (reduction from 13 to 11 for five years). The OP's formula in NCAA-speak would be described as the loss of 30 scholarships (10+8+6 etc.).

[OldPhiKap]

I am having a hard time voting. I believe UNC will get heavily penalized. But I think it will be two-step process: The first step will be institutional penalties on scholarships and post-season eligibility plus a hefty fine. The second step, occurring over the months following the initial penalties, will be to look at all student-athletes under suspicion and determine whether they were eligible to compete. If not, then every game and every championship in which an ineligible athlete participated would be voided.

From your keyboard to God's monitor.

[UrinalCake]

An option that is not included in the poll is vacation of wins WITHOUT losing any National Championship banners. Now, simple logic would dictate that if the NCAA determines that ineligible players were used in any part of the 2005 or 2009 seasons, the banners would have to come down. And those two seasons are squarely in the time frame marked by the NOA. So it wouldn't make any logical sense for those banners to stay up if games are taken away. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. The NCAA essentially did this when they punished Syracuse two years ago, vacating 100 or so games but omitting the 2003 National Championship season and the 2013 Final Four season. I don't think it was a coincidence that penalties were assessed starting in 2004 and ending in 2012. I believe that the NCAA would prefer not to take down banners, but at the same time they know that UNC's players received impermissible benefits and that they ran a sham for two decades. Taking away wins but leaving the banners intact would be a compromise that I think both sides would agree to.

I should note that I completely agree with the notion that if either banner stays up, they skated. As I've stated before, allowing them to keep a banner is basically telling every young coach in the country that they should go ahead and cheat their butts off. Why not? If you get caught, the penalty will be that you have to return a portion of what you won. You'd be stupid not to take that deal. With that said, I also understand the reality that there are challenges to taking a banner down. If just one banner comes down, I will be 90% as happy as I would be if both came down. Because it would mean the NCAA has crossed that threshold, and CHeat fans would have to accept the hard fact that they did something wrong.

I also spend a fair amount of time perusing the Inside Carolina boards just for fun. It's astounding how clueless their fans are. Most of them still believe they have literally done absolutely nothing wrong, that they just had some easy classes like every school has, as well as some courses that were taught online and therefore did not require in-class attendance, and that the media is on a witch hunt for them which the NCAA has fallen prey to. They believe they deserve an apology for the punishment they have already received - that is, having their name dragged through the mud unjustly and for destroying their recruiting for the past several years. They believe their university has been upfront and honest every step of the way, that they self-investigated themselves multiple times and found nothing, and that the NCAA has been dragging out the process. They think that the women's team should be punished, and that because Roy is such a man of impeccable character he will probably agree to some unjust punishments - losing a recruit or two for a season - just to get this whole mess over with. Another faction of their fans believe that the NCAA will impose stiff penalties (completely unjustified, of course) and that UNC will then sue them and "destroy" them in court. Only then will they receive their apology, when federal court completely overturns everything the NCAA has done.

[richardjackson199]

An option that is not included in the poll is vacation of wins WITHOUT losing any National Championship banners. Now, simple logic would dictate that if the NCAA determines that ineligible players were used in any part of the 2005 or 2009 seasons, the banners would have to come down. And those two seasons are squarely in the time frame marked by the NOA. So it wouldn't make any logical sense for those banners to stay up if games are taken away. But that doesn't mean it won't happen. The NCAA essentially did this when they punished Syracuse two years ago, vacating 100 or so games but omitting the 2003 National Championship season and the 2013 Final Four season. I don't think it was a coincidence that penalties were assessed starting in 2004 and ending in 2012. I believe that the NCAA would prefer not to take down banners, but at the same time they know that UNC's players received impermissible benefits and that they ran a sham for two decades. Taking away wins but leaving the banners intact would be a compromise that I think both sides would agree to.

I should note that I completely agree with the notion that if either banner stays up, they skated. As I've stated before, allowing them to keep a banner is basically telling every young coach in the country that they should go ahead and cheat their butts off. Why not? If you get caught, the penalty will be that you have to return a portion of what you won. You'd be stupid not to take that deal. With that said, I also understand the reality that there are challenges to taking a banner down. If just one banner comes down, I will be 90% as happy as I would be if both came down. Because it would mean the NCAA has crossed that threshold, and CHeat fans would have to accept the hard fact that they did something wrong.

I also spend a fair amount of time perusing the Inside Carolina boards just for fun. It's astounding how clueless their fans are. Most of them still believe they have literally done absolutely nothing wrong, that they just had some easy classes like every school has, as well as some courses that were taught online and therefore did not require in-class attendance, and that the media is on a witch hunt for them which the NCAA has fallen prey to. They believe they deserve an apology for the punishment they have already received - that is, having their name dragged through the mud unjustly and for destroying their recruiting for the past several years. They believe their university has been upfront and honest every step of the way, that they self-investigated themselves multiple times and found nothing, and that the NCAA has been dragging out the process. They think that the women's team should be punished, and that because Roy is such a man of impeccable character he will probably agree to some unjust punishments - losing a recruit or two for a season - just to get this whole mess over with. Another faction of their fans believe that the NCAA will impose stiff penalties (completely unjustified, of course) and that UNC will then sue them and "destroy" them in court. Only then will they receive their apology, when federal court completely overturns everything the NCAA has done.

Denial

It's not just a river in Egypt.

The river of deceit will soon be a river of angry tarhol* tears

When the hammer of reality drops like a waterfall

[Olympic Fan]

Reading this thread and looking at the poll, I'm cyrious about one thing. 35 people think the 2005 banner will come down ... but only 21 think the 2009 banner comes down.

Now, I'm not sure whether the NCAA will take down the banners (I voted yes on both, but I;m not sure). What I don't understand is the 14 people who think the 2005 banner comes down and the 2009 banner doesn't.

I find it hard to believe that one comes down and the other stays up ...either they both go or both stay.

I'd be curious to hear from any of the 14 who voted yes on the 2005 banner and no on the 2009 banner. What difference do you see? There may have been more ineligible players in 2005, but the number doesn't matter -- one ineligible player and the banner should come down.

[UrinalCake]

OlympicFan - first point, we don't know if it was the same people who voted yes on 2005 but no on 2009. It could have been 35 people who voted for just 2005 and then 21 completely different people who voted for just 2009. Or some combination in between.

Anyways, I think 2005 is more likely to come down because of McCants going on ESPN, saying he never went to class and showing his transcript. The public would be less shocked by the 2005 banner coming down, and I think that matters to the NCAA. Also, UNC has pushed the narrative that by 2009 they had started to steer athletes away from the AFAM classes (based on records, it appears they simply started clustering in Communications instead). Even though an ineligible athlete is still an ineligible athlete, I think the CHeats will argue that 2009 was "less" tainted and that fewer athletes were enrolled in the fake classes.

I agree with you though, both of them should be taken down. 1993 should be under question too, but the timeframe of the NOA doesn't go back that far so there's no chance it would come down. Also don't forget all of the ACC championships, final four appearances, and regular season wins throughout all these years.

[tecumseh]

A year probation for Cleveland State sounds about right

[53n206]

A year probation for Cleveland State sounds about right

Makes me think: Will UNC be allowed to pay some other team to take the penalties (if any) imposed upon them?
(Perhaps this is what tecumseh was implying.)

[OldPhiKap]

Makes me think: Will UNC be allowed to pay some other team to take the penalties (if any) imposed upon them?
(Perhaps this is what tecumseh was implying.)

tecumseh was referring to a famous line from Jerry Tarkanian, something to the effect of -- "the NCAA is so mad at Kentucky, they gave Cleveland State two years of probation"

i.e. they won't punish the blue bloods, but save their wrath for smaller schools that cannot fight back.

Your question led to me learning a new phrase, "Ding zui" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_zui

[sagegrouse]

tecumseh was referring to a famous line from Jerry Tarkanian, something to the effect of -- "the NCAA is so mad at Kentucky, they gave Cleveland State two years of probation"

i.e. they won't punish the blue bloods, but save their wrath for smaller schools that cannot fight back.

Your question led to me learning a new phrase, "Ding zui" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ding_zui

IIRC, this was Tark's comment about Kentucky penalties after an Emery Air Freight shipping envelope burst open in a handling center near LA and a huge amount of cash poured out. The envelope was addressed to the father of a Ky. recruit and sent from a UK assistant coach.

[swood1000]

OlympicFan - first point, we don't know if it was the same people who voted yes on 2005 but no on 2009. It could have been 35 people who voted for just 2005 and then 21 completely different people who voted for just 2009. Or some combination in between.

If you click on the number of people who voted for each option it shows who those people were.

[kmspeaks]

Reading this thread and looking at the poll, I'm cyrious about one thing. 35 people think the 2005 banner will come down ... but only 21 think the 2009 banner comes down.

Now, I'm not sure whether the NCAA will take down the banners (I voted yes on both, but I;m not sure). What I don't understand is the 14 people who think the 2005 banner comes down and the 2009 banner doesn't.

I find it hard to believe that one comes down and the other stays up ...either they both go or both stay.

I'd be curious to hear from any of the 14 who voted yes on the 2005 banner and no on the 2009 banner. What difference do you see? There may have been more ineligible players in 2005, but the number doesn't matter -- one ineligible player and the banner should come down.

Would you believe I was responding to the poll on my phone and somehow missed the box?

[madscavenger]

IIRC, this was Tark's comment about Kentucky penalties after an Emery Air Freight shipping envelope burst open in a handling center near LA and a huge amount of cash poured out. The envelope was addressed to the father of a Ky. recruit and sent from a UK assistant coach.

Shawn Kemp (not to be confused with Will Hemp, er, Graves), i believe. But that's a violation of a different color. ;);):D

[Pghdukie]

But always take into consideration - it's the Carolina Way. What sanctions can top the "Carolina Way" what a joke they are.

[throatybeard]

Yes but the NCAA's history says that all it takes is 1 ineligible player to vacate wins (see USC and Bush)

I don't see what's all that complicated here in regards to the past:


Mainly that the rules don't apply to UNC-Chapel Hill.

[richardjackson199]

Congrats to those who voted "They Skate" - you won DBR bragging rights on this one. We know none of us wanted this outcome.

Happy Friday 13!