UNC Football and bball LOL (1 Viewer)

[Sammy3469]

So genuine question here. What's the recourse by the NCAA when they find that the academic side of an institution has run amuck? How do they punish? It's typically when the NCAA has found the athletic side running amuck. When that occurs, they "drop the hammer" on the sports team (usually well after the offenders are gone), but here it's a little different. Is any athlete that took any of these classes in any sport now exposing their team to possible penalties?

It's usually a punishment because the university couldn't keep the athletic program in check. Now it's flipped around the other way?

There was certainly coordination between athletic and academic personnel given that this took place in a systematic fashion over 18 years. That interaction may not be provable given the lack of cooperation of several key former UNC employees but anybody with two working brain cells knows that it took place at some level.

As for how the NCAA handles charges specifically leveled against academic members of an institution instead of athletics, I don't know. It might give the lawyers for UNC an opening for a legal challenge. Given their mutual propensity for conniving behavior, maybe they should hire former law grad, John Edwards.

I think the professors answered it and the transcripts have been posted here several times as well as articles. Feel free to believe or disbelieve any/all/none as you see fit As such, I don't think it was an accident the NCAA worded their notice the way they did. My question still stands.

I'm not sure I get your question. The very first sentence under allegations says:

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

They sort of went out of their way to make that point. That entire first paragraph is basically laying out athletic department culpability in procuring academic benefits. At no point do they take the position that these student athletes were participating in general academic fraud available to all students (they have 252 documents to back this up).

I still think with the way the NCAA wrote this that they are looking to hammer UNC. They have all the transcripts and are basically telling UNC anyone who took these classes should be ineligible (Point 10 asks UNC for a response on what teams used ineligible athletes in which years for vacating those records). Yes the document is broad, but the NCAA has the specifics and will use them if they want.

To get hammered for LOIC and 2 un-cooperating witnesses central to the case isn't good news.

 

[Yenrub]

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article22823382.html#storylink=cpy

Even NC State fans have to laugh at how over the top this column is. The Paterno comparison is my favorite part.

Local sports radio had the author of that Op Ed piece on the other day. He was a trainwreck. Said he never read the Wainstein report.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So genuine question here. What's the recourse by the NCAA when they find that the academic side of an institution has run amuck? How do they punish? It's typically when the NCAA has found the athletic side running amuck. When that occurs, they "drop the hammer" on the sports team (usually well after the offenders are gone), but here it's a little different. Is any athlete that took any of these classes in any sport now exposing their team to possible penalties?

It's usually a punishment because the university couldn't keep the athletic program in check. Now it's flipped around the other way?

There was certainly coordination between athletic and academic personnel given that this took place in a systematic fashion over 18 years. That interaction may not be provable given the lack of cooperation of several key former UNC employees but anybody with two working brain cells knows that it took place at some level.

As for how the NCAA handles charges specifically leveled against academic members of an institution instead of athletics, I don't know. It might give the lawyers for UNC an opening for a legal challenge. Given their mutual propensity for conniving behavior, maybe they should hire former law grad, John Edwards.

I think the professors answered it and the transcripts have been posted here several times as well as articles. Feel free to believe or disbelieve any/all/none as you see fit As such, I don't think it was an accident the NCAA worded their notice the way they did. My question still stands.

I'm not sure I get your question. The very first sentence under allegations says:

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

They sort of went out of their way to make that point. That entire first paragraph is basically laying out athletic department culpability in procuring academic benefits. At no point do they take the position that these student athletes were participating in general academic fraud available to all students (they have 252 documents to back this up).

I still think with the way the NCAA wrote this that they are looking to hammer UNC. They have all the transcripts and are basically telling UNC anyone who took these classes should be ineligible (Point 10 asks UNC for a response on what teams used ineligible athletes in which years for vacating those records). Yes the document is broad, but the NCAA has the specifics and will use them if they want.

To get hammered for LOIC and 2 un-cooperating witnesses central to the case isn't good news.

The bolded is completely wrong. They said nothing remotely like that, and can't make that declaration. There has to be an impermissible benefit, and the classes by themselves do not constitute an impermissible benefit- thus the strained effort to show that people sought special treatment for athletes to get places in the classes.

 

[tdoss]

Gotta give credit to UNC...keeping this quiet for 20+ years is impressive.

Our own govt can't keep secrets this long.

 

[The Commish]

Gotta give credit to UNC...keeping this quiet for 20+ years is impressive.

Our own govt can't keep secrets this long.

Have a few friends who were in school there during this time and they all knew about the classes. It wasn't really a secret. Several even took the classes and concede they were a joke. It would have been fun busting balls over this given the "We do it the right way at UNC" attitude a lot of their alumni take, but these guys weren't in that group. So it wasn't so much fun

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Gotta give credit to UNC...keeping this quiet for 20+ years is impressive.

Our own govt can't keep secrets this long.

Roy Williams for President!!

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Gotta give credit to UNC...keeping this quiet for 20+ years is impressive.

Our own govt can't keep secrets this long.

Have a few friends who were in school there during this time and they all knew about the classes. It wasn't really a secret. Several even took the classes and concede they were a joke. It would have been fun busting balls over this given the "We do it the right way at UNC" attitude a lot of their alumni take, but these guys weren't in that group. So it wasn't so much fun

FWIW, my wife took a AFAM course there in 95 as an elective and said it was one the hardest courses she took at UNC (I'll pause for the jokes). Thought it would be easier, but it was really tough. Not sure what changed, maybe the Dept head.

 

[The Commish]

So genuine question here. What's the recourse by the NCAA when they find that the academic side of an institution has run amuck? How do they punish? It's typically when the NCAA has found the athletic side running amuck. When that occurs, they "drop the hammer" on the sports team (usually well after the offenders are gone), but here it's a little different. Is any athlete that took any of these classes in any sport now exposing their team to possible penalties?

It's usually a punishment because the university couldn't keep the athletic program in check. Now it's flipped around the other way?

There was certainly coordination between athletic and academic personnel given that this took place in a systematic fashion over 18 years. That interaction may not be provable given the lack of cooperation of several key former UNC employees but anybody with two working brain cells knows that it took place at some level.

As for how the NCAA handles charges specifically leveled against academic members of an institution instead of athletics, I don't know. It might give the lawyers for UNC an opening for a legal challenge. Given their mutual propensity for conniving behavior, maybe they should hire former law grad, John Edwards.

I think the professors answered it and the transcripts have been posted here several times as well as articles. Feel free to believe or disbelieve any/all/none as you see fit As such, I don't think it was an accident the NCAA worded their notice the way they did. My question still stands.

I'm not sure I get your question. The very first sentence under allegations says:

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

They sort of went out of their way to make that point. That entire first paragraph is basically laying out athletic department culpability in procuring academic benefits. At no point do they take the position that these student athletes were participating in general academic fraud available to all students (they have 252 documents to back this up).

I still think with the way the NCAA wrote this that they are looking to hammer UNC. They have all the transcripts and are basically telling UNC anyone who took these classes should be ineligible (Point 10 asks UNC for a response on what teams used ineligible athletes in which years for vacating those records). Yes the document is broad, but the NCAA has the specifics and will use them if they want.

To get hammered for LOIC and 2 un-cooperating witnesses central to the case isn't good news.

I guess I need to go back and read it again. I didn't come away with the impression you did while reading it. Especially the "anyone who took these classes should be ineligible" part. It will be interesting to see how UNC responds to the "special benefit" angle. When it's a series of classes open to all students as professed by the class's architect I think it might be an uphill battle, but we'll see. I do agree that two people "not cooperating" is problematic, but that's really nothing new in these sorts of things.

 

[Sammy3469]

So genuine question here. What's the recourse by the NCAA when they find that the academic side of an institution has run amuck? How do they punish? It's typically when the NCAA has found the athletic side running amuck. When that occurs, they "drop the hammer" on the sports team (usually well after the offenders are gone), but here it's a little different. Is any athlete that took any of these classes in any sport now exposing their team to possible penalties?

It's usually a punishment because the university couldn't keep the athletic program in check. Now it's flipped around the other way?

There was certainly coordination between athletic and academic personnel given that this took place in a systematic fashion over 18 years. That interaction may not be provable given the lack of cooperation of several key former UNC employees but anybody with two working brain cells knows that it took place at some level.

As for how the NCAA handles charges specifically leveled against academic members of an institution instead of athletics, I don't know. It might give the lawyers for UNC an opening for a legal challenge. Given their mutual propensity for conniving behavior, maybe they should hire former law grad, John Edwards.

I think the professors answered it and the transcripts have been posted here several times as well as articles. Feel free to believe or disbelieve any/all/none as you see fit As such, I don't think it was an accident the NCAA worded their notice the way they did. My question still stands.

I'm not sure I get your question. The very first sentence under allegations says:

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

They sort of went out of their way to make that point. That entire first paragraph is basically laying out athletic department culpability in procuring academic benefits. At no point do they take the position that these student athletes were participating in general academic fraud available to all students (they have 252 documents to back this up).

I still think with the way the NCAA wrote this that they are looking to hammer UNC. They have all the transcripts and are basically telling UNC anyone who took these classes should be ineligible (Point 10 asks UNC for a response on what teams used ineligible athletes in which years for vacating those records). Yes the document is broad, but the NCAA has the specifics and will use them if they want.

To get hammered for LOIC and 2 un-cooperating witnesses central to the case isn't good news.

The bolded is completely wrong. They said nothing remotely like that, and can't make that declaration. There has to be an impermissible benefit, and the classes by themselves do not constitute an impermissible benefit- thus the strained effort to show that people sought special treatment for athletes to get places in the classes.

Let me try to be clearer then...the NCAA is saying the entire edifice was an impermissible benefit (that is point B.1.a). You can argue otherwise, but it doesn't change the position the NCAA has taken.

 

[tdoss]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

 

[The Commish]

So genuine question here. What's the recourse by the NCAA when they find that the academic side of an institution has run amuck? How do they punish? It's typically when the NCAA has found the athletic side running amuck. When that occurs, they "drop the hammer" on the sports team (usually well after the offenders are gone), but here it's a little different. Is any athlete that took any of these classes in any sport now exposing their team to possible penalties?

It's usually a punishment because the university couldn't keep the athletic program in check. Now it's flipped around the other way?

There was certainly coordination between athletic and academic personnel given that this took place in a systematic fashion over 18 years. That interaction may not be provable given the lack of cooperation of several key former UNC employees but anybody with two working brain cells knows that it took place at some level.

As for how the NCAA handles charges specifically leveled against academic members of an institution instead of athletics, I don't know. It might give the lawyers for UNC an opening for a legal challenge. Given their mutual propensity for conniving behavior, maybe they should hire former law grad, John Edwards.

I think the professors answered it and the transcripts have been posted here several times as well as articles. Feel free to believe or disbelieve any/all/none as you see fit As such, I don't think it was an accident the NCAA worded their notice the way they did. My question still stands.

I'm not sure I get your question. The very first sentence under allegations says:

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

They sort of went out of their way to make that point. That entire first paragraph is basically laying out athletic department culpability in procuring academic benefits. At no point do they take the position that these student athletes were participating in general academic fraud available to all students (they have 252 documents to back this up).

I still think with the way the NCAA wrote this that they are looking to hammer UNC. They have all the transcripts and are basically telling UNC anyone who took these classes should be ineligible (Point 10 asks UNC for a response on what teams used ineligible athletes in which years for vacating those records). Yes the document is broad, but the NCAA has the specifics and will use them if they want.

To get hammered for LOIC and 2 un-cooperating witnesses central to the case isn't good news.

The bolded is completely wrong. They said nothing remotely like that, and can't make that declaration. There has to be an impermissible benefit, and the classes by themselves do not constitute an impermissible benefit- thus the strained effort to show that people sought special treatment for athletes to get places in the classes.

Let me try to be clearer then...the NCAA is saying the entire edifice was an impermissible benefit (that is point B.1.a). You can argue otherwise, but it doesn't change the position the NCAA has taken.

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

 

[The Commish]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Asked way better than I did above...thanks!

ETA: To be clear though, this isn't a new concept. It's been in every institution I've ever paid any close attention to. UNC didn't invent this. Most schools have "joke" classes/majors. They are usually called "sports communications" or "health management" or "information science" or some such.

 

[tdoss]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Asked way better than I did above...thanks!ETA: To be clear though, this isn't a new concept. It's been in every institution I've ever paid any close attention to. UNC didn't invent this. Most schools have "joke" classes/majors. They are usually called "sports communications" or "health management" or "information science" or some such.

Oh, most definitely...but this is the first I've heard of a completely sham course. They usually provide some lip service and hold a class or two to demonstrate some effort. UNC said screw that noise...no class, no paper, no test...just sign up and bingo...you get an A.

 

[BassNBrew]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Asked way better than I did above...thanks!

ETA: To be clear though, this isn't a new concept. It's been in every institution I've ever paid any close attention to. UNC didn't invent this. Most schools have "joke" classes/majors. They are usually called "sports communications" or "health management" or "information science" or some such.

I met two NC State students that were in golf course mgmt or something along those lines.

http://cnr.ncsu.edu/prtm/current-undergraduates/ug-programs/pgm/

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Exactly. I think we discussed this earlier in the thread. If you're allowing all students to take these classes and they all get no class, one paper and easy grading, it's difficult to argue that it was clearly an athletic issue. In fact, didn't Crowder say she started doing this for "disadvantaged" kids that were single moms, or whatever, and there weren't athletes in the classes at the beginning?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Homer view, but reasonable for a homer view, IMO:

http://www.tarheelblog.com/2015/6/4/8732795/four-things-we-learned-from-the-noa?utm_campaign=tarheelblog&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

 

[Sammy3469]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

 

[tdoss]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Exactly. I think we discussed this earlier in the thread. If you're allowing all students to take these classes and they all get no class, one paper and easy grading, it's difficult to argue that it was clearly an athletic issue. In fact, didn't Crowder say she started doing this for "disadvantaged" kids that were single moms, or whatever, and there weren't athletes in the classes at the beginning?

It's genius.

Hell...why even set a course limit? You could enroll the entire student body. I mean, there's no room capacity on no physical room or course.

They should've went full tilt boogie and auto enrolled everyone just for getting into UNC.

Can't say it's not fair when everyone is in the class.

 

[The Commish]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Asked way better than I did above...thanks!ETA: To be clear though, this isn't a new concept. It's been in every institution I've ever paid any close attention to. UNC didn't invent this. Most schools have "joke" classes/majors. They are usually called "sports communications" or "health management" or "information science" or some such.

Oh, most definitely...but this is the first I've heard of a completely sham course. They usually provide some lip service and hold a class or two to demonstrate some effort. UNC said screw that noise...no class, no paper, no test...just sign up and bingo...you get an A.

Yeah, to that extent I'd agree....it's kinda funny actually.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So genuine question here. What's the recourse by the NCAA when they find that the academic side of an institution has run amuck? How do they punish? It's typically when the NCAA has found the athletic side running amuck. When that occurs, they "drop the hammer" on the sports team (usually well after the offenders are gone), but here it's a little different. Is any athlete that took any of these classes in any sport now exposing their team to possible penalties?

It's usually a punishment because the university couldn't keep the athletic program in check. Now it's flipped around the other way?

There was certainly coordination between athletic and academic personnel given that this took place in a systematic fashion over 18 years. That interaction may not be provable given the lack of cooperation of several key former UNC employees but anybody with two working brain cells knows that it took place at some level.

As for how the NCAA handles charges specifically leveled against academic members of an institution instead of athletics, I don't know. It might give the lawyers for UNC an opening for a legal challenge. Given their mutual propensity for conniving behavior, maybe they should hire former law grad, John Edwards.

I think the professors answered it and the transcripts have been posted here several times as well as articles. Feel free to believe or disbelieve any/all/none as you see fit As such, I don't think it was an accident the NCAA worded their notice the way they did. My question still stands.

I'm not sure I get your question. The very first sentence under allegations says:

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body.

They sort of went out of their way to make that point. That entire first paragraph is basically laying out athletic department culpability in procuring academic benefits. At no point do they take the position that these student athletes were participating in general academic fraud available to all students (they have 252 documents to back this up).

I still think with the way the NCAA wrote this that they are looking to hammer UNC. They have all the transcripts and are basically telling UNC anyone who took these classes should be ineligible (Point 10 asks UNC for a response on what teams used ineligible athletes in which years for vacating those records). Yes the document is broad, but the NCAA has the specifics and will use them if they want.

To get hammered for LOIC and 2 un-cooperating witnesses central to the case isn't good news.

The bolded is completely wrong. They said nothing remotely like that, and can't make that declaration. There has to be an impermissible benefit, and the classes by themselves do not constitute an impermissible benefit- thus the strained effort to show that people sought special treatment for athletes to get places in the classes.

Let me try to be clearer then...the NCAA is saying the entire edifice was an impermissible benefit (that is point B.1.a). You can argue otherwise, but it doesn't change the position the NCAA has taken.

Could you quote me the language that leads you to believe that anyone who took the classes should be ineligible, or that "the entire edifice was an impermissible benefit?" I've read Section B.1.a and the rest of the allegations and I don't see anything like that, but perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Exactly. I think we discussed this earlier in the thread. If you're allowing all students to take these classes and they all get no class, one paper and easy grading, it's difficult to argue that it was clearly an athletic issue. In fact, didn't Crowder say she started doing this for "disadvantaged" kids that were single moms, or whatever, and there weren't athletes in the classes at the beginning?

It's genius.

Hell...why even set a course limit? You could enroll the entire student body. I mean, there's no room capacity on no physical room or course.

They should've went full tilt boogie and auto enrolled everyone just for getting into UNC.

Can't say it's not fair when everyone is in the class.

So the diploma from UNC carries MORE weight now because they were so brilliant about this scam, right?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Exactly. I think we discussed this earlier in the thread. If you're allowing all students to take these classes and they all get no class, one paper and easy grading, it's difficult to argue that it was clearly an athletic issue. In fact, didn't Crowder say she started doing this for "disadvantaged" kids that were single moms, or whatever, and there weren't athletes in the classes at the beginning?

It's genius.

Hell...why even set a course limit? You could enroll the entire student body. I mean, there's no room capacity on no physical room or course.

They should've went full tilt boogie and auto enrolled everyone just for getting into UNC.

Can't say it's not fair when everyone is in the class.

"We're going to cut some costs on physical overhead.....enroll every student in 5 AFAM courses this semester"

--Every Other College--

"That's brilliant!"

 

[tdoss]

This is the blueprint though right? Setup bogus course...make sure your academically challenged athletes get steered to the class and open it up to the student body.

What can NCAA do? It's available to all.

Call UNC what you want...they're not dumb.

Exactly. I think we discussed this earlier in the thread. If you're allowing all students to take these classes and they all get no class, one paper and easy grading, it's difficult to argue that it was clearly an athletic issue. In fact, didn't Crowder say she started doing this for "disadvantaged" kids that were single moms, or whatever, and there weren't athletes in the classes at the beginning?

It's genius.Hell...why even set a course limit? You could enroll the entire student body. I mean, there's no room capacity on no physical room or course.

They should've went full tilt boogie and auto enrolled everyone just for getting into UNC.

Can't say it's not fair when everyone is in the class.

So the diploma from UNC carries MORE weight now because they were so brilliant about this scam, right?

Like I said before...the Unicorn.

This ish was so epic you just gotta sit back and applaud.

And somehow making women's basketball take the fall...brilliant.

This is next level gaming here...

 

[TLEF316]

To me, the "see!! Regular students took the classes too" argument doesn't hold water. Yeah, maybe their involvement technically makes it an "academic" issue rather than athletic. However, it's still way too easy to see who ultimately benefits (the athletic department) and what the purpose was.

If the involvement of non athletes gets them off the hook, what's to stop schools from extending this strategy to other impermissible benefits? Let's give the starting qb a free Mercedes. As long as we give some other random student a car as well, it should be ok, right?

 

[The Commish]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

 

[Sammy3469]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

Seriously, let them make that argument. I'm sure they have already, but the enforcement staff didn't buy it. Plus Crowder isn't co-operating so nothing she says really matters to the NCAA.

The NCAA basically said that argument is pure BS and we have the e-mails to prove it.

 

[The Commish]

To me, the "see!! Regular students took the classes too" argument doesn't hold water. Yeah, maybe their involvement technically makes it an "academic" issue rather than athletic. However, it's still way too easy to see who ultimately benefits (the athletic department) and what the purpose was.

If the involvement of non athletes gets them off the hook, what's to stop schools from extending this strategy to other impermissible benefits? Let's give the starting qb a free Mercedes. As long as we give some other random student a car as well, it should be ok, right?

I don't disagree really. However, that's an issue with crappy NCAA rules more than anything else.

 

[TobiasFunke]

To me, the "see!! Regular students took the classes too" argument doesn't hold water. Yeah, maybe their involvement technically makes it an "academic" issue rather than athletic. However, it's still way too easy to see who ultimately benefits (the athletic department) and what the purpose was.

If the involvement of non athletes gets them off the hook, what's to stop schools from extending this strategy to other impermissible benefits? Let's give the starting qb a free Mercedes. As long as we give some other random student a car as well, it should be ok, right?

That is 100% correct. It would definitely be OK. I'm not sure why you think that's problematic.

What's to stop them from doing it? The impact on their university as a whole (i.e you have to come up with a way to pay for it, which is basically impossible). Just as what would presumably stop UNC from offering fraudulent or excessively easy courses is the impact on the university as a whole. It's not the NCAA's job to make those decisions, much as Duke and NC State fans would like it to be. That's why they strained so hard to find aspects of the Afro-Am scandal what were only available to athletes (preferential enrollment, requests for certain content or grades). Simply offering easy classes that are equally available to non-students is not an impermissible benefit.

ETA: Sorry, I intially read your hypo as making the Mercedes available to all students. Just giving one to one non-athlete student and all the athletes would obviously still be a violation. Of course that's also not at all analogous to this situation, since the classes were open to all students.

 

[The Commish]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

Seriously, let them make that argument. I'm sure they have already, but the enforcement staff didn't buy it. Plus Crowder isn't co-operating so nothing she says really matters to the NCAA.

The NCAA basically said that argument is pure BS and we have the e-mails to prove it.

Dumb question I guess but do they have emails that no one else has? I considered the Wainstein report pretty thorough, but I don't remember seeing these sorts of smoking gun emails.

ETA: And didn't Wainstein say she cooperated fully in his investigation? The NCAA can't read what she said to Wainstein? I'd probably be on the NCAA's side if they were a credible entity, but they really are a joke and quite frankly, I don't have a problem with anyone making things as difficult as possible for that Keystone Cop "organization"

 

[ConstruxBoy]

To me, the "see!! Regular students took the classes too" argument doesn't hold water. Yeah, maybe their involvement technically makes it an "academic" issue rather than athletic. However, it's still way too easy to see who ultimately benefits (the athletic department) and what the purpose was.

If the involvement of non athletes gets them off the hook, what's to stop schools from extending this strategy to other impermissible benefits? Let's give the starting qb a free Mercedes. As long as we give some other random student a car as well, it should be ok, right?

"Anarchy! Anarchy! Anarchy!"

 

[TPW]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

Why would any professor set up bogus paper classes to benefit struggling students? What's their motivation for placing their entire career at risk by violating the university's academic code of ethics? If the goal is to best serve the general student body then wouldn't publically offered tutoring provide what is the claimed rationale with zero potential negative costs?

 

[The Commish]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

Why would any professor set up bogus paper classes to benefit struggling students? What's their motivation for placing their entire career at risk by violating the university's academic code of ethics? If the goal is to best serve the general student body then wouldn't publically offered tutoring provide what is the claimed rationale with zero potential negative costs?

I wouldn't do it. All I have to go on is what she said her motivations were. I'm not saying I buy them, but it's generally on the NCAA to show the person is lying. That said, this isn't a court of law so I guess "we simply don't believe you" is sufficient for the NCAA

ETA: Was she even a professor? I thought she was an administrator

 

[TLEF316]

To me, the "see!! Regular students took the classes too" argument doesn't hold water. Yeah, maybe their involvement technically makes it an "academic" issue rather than athletic. However, it's still way too easy to see who ultimately benefits (the athletic department) and what the purpose was.

If the involvement of non athletes gets them off the hook, what's to stop schools from extending this strategy to other impermissible benefits? Let's give the starting qb a free Mercedes. As long as we give some other random student a car as well, it should be ok, right?

That is 100% correct. It would definitely be OK. I'm not sure why you think that's problematic.

What's to stop them from doing it? The impact on their university as a whole (i.e you have to come up with a way to pay for it, which is basically impossible). Just as what would presumably stop UNC from offering fraudulent or excessively easy courses is the impact on the university as a whole. It's not the NCAA's job to make those decisions, much as Duke and NC State fans would like it to be. That's why they strained so hard to find aspects of the Afro-Am scandal what were only available to athletes (preferential enrollment, requests for certain content or grades). Simply offering easy classes that are equally available to non-students is not an impermissible benefit.

ETA: Sorry, I intially read your hypo as making the Mercedes available to all students. Just giving one to one non-athlete student and all the athletes would obviously still be a violation. Of course that's also not at all analogous to this situation, since the classes were open to all students.

They may have been open to all students but it seems that athletes got preferential enrollment (nearly 50% of the class was athletes even though they only make up like 4% of the student body)

So again.... the university/athletic department invests in 10 cars. 5 go to the basketball team to get the best possible starting 5. The other 5 are "open to all students" based on a first come first serve basis. Still ok?

If we assume that athletes were given preferential treatment to get into the classes (which seems to be the case given the enrollment numbers) it's the same thing

 

[TPW]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

Why would any professor set up bogus paper classes to benefit struggling students? What's their motivation for placing their entire career at risk by violating the university's academic code of ethics? If the goal is to best serve the general student body then wouldn't publically offered tutoring provide what is the claimed rationale with zero potential negative costs?

I wouldn't do it. All I have to go on is what she said her motivations were. I'm not saying I buy them, but it's generally on the NCAA to show the person is lying. That said, this isn't a court of law so I guess "we simply don't believe you" is sufficient for the NCAA

ETA: Was she even a professor? I thought she was an administrator

Professor or administrator she is one of the two people most involved, the other being ex-professor and department head, Julius Nyang'oro. It's hard for the NCAA to catch her in a direct lie when she has been completely uncooperative during their investigation.

Again, the creation of sham classes does not occur in a vacuum. There was some sort of quid pro quo involving athletic administrators and/or coaches. There wasn't a "lack of institutional control". The entire operation has been carefully orchestrated. However, given an absence of hard evidence, the LOIC charge is the best the NCAA can do.

 

[TobiasFunke]

To me, the "see!! Regular students took the classes too" argument doesn't hold water. Yeah, maybe their involvement technically makes it an "academic" issue rather than athletic. However, it's still way too easy to see who ultimately benefits (the athletic department) and what the purpose was.

If the involvement of non athletes gets them off the hook, what's to stop schools from extending this strategy to other impermissible benefits? Let's give the starting qb a free Mercedes. As long as we give some other random student a car as well, it should be ok, right?

That is 100% correct. It would definitely be OK. I'm not sure why you think that's problematic.

What's to stop them from doing it? The impact on their university as a whole (i.e you have to come up with a way to pay for it, which is basically impossible). Just as what would presumably stop UNC from offering fraudulent or excessively easy courses is the impact on the university as a whole. It's not the NCAA's job to make those decisions, much as Duke and NC State fans would like it to be. That's why they strained so hard to find aspects of the Afro-Am scandal what were only available to athletes (preferential enrollment, requests for certain content or grades). Simply offering easy classes that are equally available to non-students is not an impermissible benefit.

ETA: Sorry, I intially read your hypo as making the Mercedes available to all students. Just giving one to one non-athlete student and all the athletes would obviously still be a violation. Of course that's also not at all analogous to this situation, since the classes were open to all students.

They may have been open to all students but it seems that athletes got preferential enrollment (nearly 50% of the class was athletes even though they only make up like 4% of the student body)

So again.... the university/athletic department invests in 10 cars. 5 go to the basketball team to get the best possible starting 5. The other 5 are "open to all students" based on a first come first serve basis. Still ok?

If we assume that athletes were given preferential treatment to get into the classes (which seems to be the case given the enrollment numbers) it's the same thing

If the bolded is correct, that's an impermissible benefit. Totally agree. So does the NCAA, which is why they listed instances where advisers reached out to the professors/administrators seeking that kind of treatment.

However, I disagree that the numbers by themselves prove preferential treatment. There are plenty of reasons that football and basketball players would be disproportionately represented in Afro-Am classes that don't have regularly scheduled lectures. I'm pretty sure that any school in the country that offers Afro-Am classes that don't have regularly scheduled lectures would have a disproportionate number of football and basketball players enrolled, because (1) a disproportionate number of those athletes are black and black people tend to take Afro-Am classes, and (2) people who play those sports have demanding schedules and a paper class- even a real one where you have to actually write papers and earn your grade- is helpful in that respect.

 

[The Commish]

Right...this is what I took from it when I read it the first time. The whole department was a sham. So is the next step for the NCAA to demonstrate that it was there for X athletic teams and no other students? This is why I asked my question before. The NCAA is saying the whole department was a joke, reckless, whatever. Me taking a class there, it would still be a joke. Athletes taking classes, still a joke.

To be precise they are not making any judgment on the whole department, but rather saying athletic academic counselors leveraged their relationships for a whole host of academic benefits for athletes that weren't available to regular students. That's the standard NCAA MO. They haven't said what courses were bad (B.1.b gets into a 10 athletes that took too many Independent Study classes), but instead said the entire time period from 2002-2011 was an impermissible benefit to any student-athlete that went through them to get to the AFAM classes. It's broad because they knew UNC would shoot back that we think these are real classes. They've now put the onus back on UNC to say these weren't benefits (but guess what guys, we have 252 exhibits proving otherwise).

They've gone overall broad and now leave it to UNC to come back to them to say who should be ineligible (page 54 wants a response to Bylaws 31.2.2.3, 31.2.2.4, and 19.9.7-(g) which are used to vacate records). They're looking for UNC to do the right thing here.

Don't you think UNC will reply simply by saying "there's nothing to be leveraged. these classes are open to the entire student body". The architect of the initial courses (Crowder I think is the name, right?) said they originated for any student who was struggling. Essentially, she felt bad for them blah blah blah. Then she quickly saw the athletic departments were taking advantage. I personally found the last part quite comical. I'm not sure what she expected.

Why would any professor set up bogus paper classes to benefit struggling students? What's their motivation for placing their entire career at risk by violating the university's academic code of ethics? If the goal is to best serve the general student body then wouldn't publically offered tutoring provide what is the claimed rationale with zero potential negative costs?

I wouldn't do it. All I have to go on is what she said her motivations were. I'm not saying I buy them, but it's generally on the NCAA to show the person is lying. That said, this isn't a court of law so I guess "we simply don't believe you" is sufficient for the NCAA

ETA: Was she even a professor? I thought she was an administrator

Professor or administrator she is one of the two people most involved, the other being ex-professor and department head, Julius Nyang'oro. It's hard for the NCAA to catch her in a direct lie when she has been completely uncooperative during their investigation.

Again, the creation of sham classes does not occur in a vacuum. There was some sort of qui pro quo involving athletic administrators and/or coaches. There wasn't a "lack of institutional control". The entire operation has been carefully orchestrated. However, given an absence of hard evidence, the LOIC charge is the best the NCAA can do.

I'll just post my edit from before here:

Didn't Wainstein say she cooperated fully in his investigation? The NCAA can't read what she said to Wainstein? I'd probably be on the NCAA's side if they were a credible entity, but they really are a joke and quite frankly, I don't have a problem with anyone making things as difficult as possible for that Keystone Cop "organization".

And I agree her boss is just as responsible as she is and the institution is ultimately responsible. There's no question about that. The question ultimately is one of how far does the reach of the NCAA go exactly? It was the same question in the PSU case and I still maintain the NCAA doesn't have a dog in a fight outside of "fairness" between member institutions and treatment of athletes vs treatment of students. Right now the NCAA is saying the athletes got preferential treatment by being allowed to take classes that anyone else could take. That's a huge hurdle under normal circumstances, but this is the NCAA. They don't have to have "proof" they can go on "belief" and render whatever sort of decision they want. So does the NCAA have a role in shaping academic departments on a university campus? If yes, carry on NCAA and hammer the hell out of UNC (and get your pencil sharpened because you now have a lot of work to do evaluating all the other academic programs at all the other schools that are part of your organization). If no, go back and try and find something in your jurisdiction. This seems to me to be one of the more black/white scenarios if I'm being honest.

 

[Tau837]

I scanned through the document and saw these sports mentioned: football, MBB, WBB, baseball, softball, women's soccer, women's track, women's tennis.

Allegation 2 makes it seem likely that WBB is going to get hammered.

Allegation 5 seems to be the one that bears the most directly on possible punishment to other specific programs, notably football and MBB. That allegation says:

The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses.

It further asks UNC to respond to agree/disagree with the information in the allegation and the level of violation, submitting facts/materials in support of their position.

This implies to me that the burden is on UNC to show that they did not have any student-athletes in football, MBB, or WBB who maintained eligibility solely through these "anomalous" courses to which they had "preferential access" and received "other impermissible benefits" and "artificially high grades." If they cannot show there were no such student-athletes, or if they admit that there were some, then it stands to reason that there will be program-specific punishments, the extent of which would be determined by the number of instances per program and the associated details.

It also seems that the punishment for the LOI could be parsed out to football, MBB, and WBB, since they are apparently the programs that most and disproportionately benefited from the scheme.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Well somebody here is a Debbie Downer.

 

[Tau837]

I read elsewhere that 33 athletes did not comply with the NCAA's 6/18/24 hour eligibility requirement, which is not GPA driven but is instead based on credit hours. This is because those athletes took more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses, which UNC's own policy says do not count toward graduation. Thus, those hours above 12 would not count toward eligibility. I don't believe it is known publicly which sports those athletes played.

I also read somewhere that UNC's policy increased from 6 hours to 12 hours within the past few years, meaning that for much of the period addressed in the allegations the hour limit would have been lower.

There would also likely be cases where athletes would have failed to meet GPA eligibility without the good grades that would come from the hours over 12 and/or without anomalous courses that did not exceed 12 hours. Those would be in addition to the 33 athletes above.

Altogether, the implication is that there were a lot of ineligible athletes who played in a lot of games.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Sounds like a benefit of going to UNC to me.

 

[Tau837]

Sounds like a benefit of going to UNC to me.

Yes. An impermissible benefit.

 

[The Commish]

Year Probation?

Thought there was much more to happen before a "punishment" came down

ETA: Maybe this is just accreditation??

 

[MattFancy]

Year Probation?

Thought there was much more to happen before a "punishment" came down

ETA: Maybe this is just accreditation??

Yeah believe this is just from the accreditation side

 

[Sammy3469]

"It's a big deal," said Belle Whelan, SACS president. "This issue was bigger than anything with which we’ve ever dealt, and it went on for longer than anything else. This is the first one I can recall in the 10 years I’ve been here that we put an institution on probation for academic fraud or academic integrity."

The NCAA may take away all their banners, but at least Carolina will be able to say they were still first in something while this was going on

Oh and SACS seems to think this is an athletic issue as well:

The group said UNC-CH violated seven principles, including integrity, program content, control of intercollegiate athletics, academic support services, academic freedom, faculty role in governance and Title IV program responsibilities.

 

[The Commish]

Am I the only one seeing "one year probation" as a slap on the wrist??

 

[tdoss]

Does seem lenient.

I don't think anyone can argue that this wasn't academic fraud...at the very least.

So...you'd think the accreditation side would've come down hard...while NCAA came down light.

If this is it from the academic side...tthen maybe NCAA does very little from their side.

 

[The Commish]

Does seem lenient.

I don't think anyone can argue that this wasn't academic fraud...at the very least.

So...you'd think the accreditation side would've come down hard...while NCAA came down light.

If this is it from the academic side...tthen maybe NCAA does very little from their side.

Well, it's the NCAA....they don't understand boundaries. I can easily see them saying "damn, that was weak. we can do better than that. watch this!"

 

[RUSF18]

I believe I read that the next penalty after one year probation is loss of accreditation. I'm no UNC apologist when it comes to this case but it seems like having tens of thousands of students at risk of seeing their in-progress degrees go up in flames overnight is a little severe.

 

[Johnny Rock]

On the sports side I'd like to see the Death Penalty. It's much worse to me that it's UNC vs. a less prominent school, sports program and conference.

 

[tdoss]

Apparently the only one's in jeopardy of the death penalty is women's basketball.

That's awesome...it's like when Star Trek would send a crew down to a planet...piss some alien race off and the only one's who'd die were the red shirts...leaving Kirk to space sex everything in sight.