UNC Athletics Scandal - Wainstein Report

[killerleft]

And I will say it once again. Taking down those banners and vacating titles wins is not a punishment of the "fans". The impact goes well beyond Joe Fan.

Hit 'em where it hurts. It will certainly reach back to the administration in several ways if a title or ten just - poof! - vanishes. I certainly don't see a scenario where allowing them to keep the illegally-gotten championships is the right thing to do. The pleasing aroma of burnt Tar Heel ears is half the point!

[DU82]

I'm all for taking down the banners. They don't deserve the honor of hanging them, when they showed no honor in "winning" them.

Yes, it is mostly symbolic, and I doubt that any fan base that counts it's 1924 Helms' award as a national championship will back off of a vacated NCAA championship, but at least the official record will reflect it.

At the baseball HOF today, down the road from Syracuse (it is snowing; glad tomorrow's game is inside), one exhibit is the ball Barry Bonds hit for his 756th home run. The guy who bought it put an asterisk on it and then donated it to the HOF.

Riffing off a UNC-CHeat t-shirt, I propose the following:

4 > 6*

[Kedsy]

To me, the bigger picture is not about taking away their income or suggesting boosters to stop giving money. It's about taking away the boosters' incentive to encourage the athletic department to win at all costs. I'm quite certain that some boosters make their wishes known as they deliver their check. I'd like there to be some impetus for those checks to come with stipulation to excel in both the classroom and the playing field and follow all the rules.

If the previous checks came in with the instruction to "win, and I don't care how you do it," then obviously those boosters didn't care if the wins were attained legitimately. So, (a) I'm not sure how retroactive punishment takes away the incentive; and (b) I think the most likely new instruction will be to "win, I don't care how you do it, and don't get caught this time," rather than any hypothetical admonitions to excel in the classroom or follow the rules.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that it hurts innocent (or at least relatively innocent) people, I think the only effective incentive is to take away the future, e.g., with post-season bans and scholarship reductions. The problem, as many here have stated, is that it's practically impossible to render sufficient future punishment for 18-years of blatant cheating in light of past punishments at other schools for far less egregious offenses.

[OldPhiKap]

The pleasing aroma of burnt Tar Heel ears is half the point!

Fop, or Dapper Dan?

"We waz banned from the NCAA. Roy, was it all of them or just that one?"

[BigWayne]

As I said in my previous post, what you're describing is a reaction to the scandal itself, not a potential reaction to the NCAA mandating that, e.g., the 2005 banner be removed from the Dean Dome, which I doubt would have any significant financial impact (apart from the scandal's impact).

For some of them, as long as the NCAA sits on it's hands, their claims of everybody does it are easier for them to self-rationalize and minimize the scandal. When the NCAA takes down the banners and keeps them out of bowls and March madness, they will be put on notice that yes this is a real scandal of substantial proportions.

[killerleft]

Fop, or Dapper Dan?

"We waz banned from the NCAA. Roy, was it all of them or just that one?"

LOL - caught me. I'd be a Dapper Dan man if I had enough hair and was as good looking as George Clooney! I'd probably wear Fop, too! My hair!

[Kfanarmy]

As I said in my previous post, what you're describing is a reaction to the scandal itself, not a potential reaction to the NCAA mandating that, e.g., the 2005 banner be removed from the Dean Dome, which I doubt would have any significant financial impact (apart from the scandal's impact).

That is an obtuse notion. You can't delink the scandal and NCAA punishment. The N(ational) CAA action will affirm the severity of the cheating and amplify the financial impact. It will put a very public national stain on UNC that will last for decades.

[Kedsy]

That is an obtuse notion. You can't delink the scandal and NCAA punishment. The N(ational) CAA action will affirm the severity of the cheating and amplify the financial impact. It will put a very public national stain on UNC that will last for decades.

One could argue the above is a naive notion. It seems more likely that the NCAA can't affirm the severity of the cheating, because the cheating is so severe that any punishment would either (a) end athletics as we know it at UNC (which, let's face it, isn't going to happen); or (b) appear ludicrously lenient compared to the penalties other universities have suffered for far lesser crimes. Personally, I don't see a third option.

And if the punishment appears light, as it inevitably must, then it will likely have little (if any) financial impact. While the stain of the scandal itself may last for decades, the NCAA's decision will do little (if anything) to add to that stain.

[fidel]

If the previous checks came in with the instruction to "win, and I don't care how you do it," then obviously those boosters didn't care if the wins were attained legitimately. So, (a) I'm not sure how retroactive punishment takes away the incentive; and (b) I think the most likely new instruction will be to "win, I don't care how you do it, and don't get caught this time," rather than any hypothetical admonitions to excel in the classroom or follow the rules.

Unfortunately, despite the fact that it hurts innocent (or at least relatively innocent) people, I think the only effective incentive is to take away the future, e.g., with post-season bans and scholarship reductions. The problem, as many here have stated, is that it's practically impossible to render sufficient future punishment for 18-years of blatant cheating in light of past punishments at other schools for far less egregious offenses.

Me, I'd go after the money instead of some kid's future. The kids may be lazy by taking the paper classes, but there are adults that are supposedly in charge.

Make UNC pull from a hat half of the season ticket holders, and tell those folks they no longer have seats. No more 'seat licenses'. Make the alumni and the fans hurt. I guarantee that the threat of the loss of a) the revenue for the school, and b) the prestige afforded the ticket holders, will do a lot more to exact scholastic success as well as athletic.

[Kedsy]

Me, I'd go after the money instead of some kid's future. The kids may be lazy by taking the paper classes, but there are adults that are supposedly in charge.

Make UNC pull from a hat half of the season ticket holders, and tell those folks they no longer have seats. No more 'seat licenses'. Make the alumni and the fans hurt. I guarantee that the threat of the loss of a) the revenue for the school, and b) the prestige afforded the ticket holders, will do a lot more to exact scholastic success as well as athletic.

First of all, I can't imagine the NCAA has jurisdiction to levy such a punishment. Second, you don't want to go after kids who broke rules because they were "lazy" (though actually I don't think any of the current kids actually took paper classes), but you don't have a problem going after alumni and fans who didn't break any rules at all? Finally, if you let the kids transfer with no penalty, then you aren't going after any kid's future. You're depriving the university of future revenue, which appears to be what you think is best anyway.

[BigWayne]

Lawsuit time.

"What this could mean

McAdoo's lawsuit could potentially uncover even more than the damning Wainstein investigation, which was by far the most thorough and provided a slew of information that had previously been discounted by UNC.

The difference is in the power of subpoena."

Those PR bills are gonna look small after they get done defending the lawsuits.