UNC Athletics Scandal: NCAA response

[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.