UNC Athletics Scandal: NCAA response

[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...

[DukieInKansas]

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

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?

[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.

[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?

...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/un...ords-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.

[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!"

[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.

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

[sagegrouse]

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

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'