UNC Football and bball LOL (2 Viewers)

[ConstruxBoy]

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.

Now I'm picturing Roy as Captain Kirk.

 

[pantherclub]

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.

Now I'm picturing Roy as Captain Kirk.

Have you ever seen his wife Wanda? I could see him going for some strange

 

[Tau837]

Accrediting organization: Problems at UNC-CH 'a big deal'

...

"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 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.

SACS defines program content as: degree programs that embody a coherent course of study that is compatible with its stated mission and is based upon fields of study appropriate to higher education.

"It’s the root of what an academic institution does," Whelan said. "If you can’t count on the quality of the program that students enroll and are granted a degree then what can you do? Why do you exist as an institution?"

...

SACS vice president Cheryl Cardell told UNC-Chapel Hill officials in a November letter that Wainstein's findings didn't jibe with information the university provided to the accrediting organization in 2013, when officials insisted the fraud was limited to the activities of two people in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies.

Willingham said she believes that the trickle of revelations only served to aggravate SACS.

From what I understand, this could hurt UNC in two significant areas: grant funding and recruiting of quality faculty. Given this outcome, it seems curious that UNC's faculty haven't been more vocal throughout this long running scandal. Jay Smith and Willingham have, but they seem to be the only real exceptions.

Also, I saw elsewhere that the principle "faculty role in governance" involves governance of financial aid. If accurate, that is another potentially serious issue that could result in other problems for UNC.

 

[Tau837]

FIFA scandal has nothing on sham that is big-time college hoops

This week, on the (tar) heels of revelations of 18 years of systemic academic fraud that should have brought shame and shame-driven change to University of North Carolina student-athletics, the school instead prepared to reward its highest-paid beneficiary of the fraud, basketball coach Roy Williams, with a contract extension for a job well done.

...

So, for 18 years UNC pursued 18-year-olds, dangling full scholarships to play for its basketball team, no reading, writing or arithmetic wanted or needed. You wanna be a junior? Poof, you’re a junior! Senior? Done. Dean’s List? Dean Smith? Oh, that one! Sure! Just hurry up. Don’t be shut out of those imaginary classes!

The logical will conclude that North Carolina not only likes the way Williams had no idea about the academic realities of those he recruits to the college, but also UNC would like him to continue being — or at least playing — ignorant. Keep up the good work, Coach!

 

[TobiasFunke]

FIFA scandal has nothing on sham that is big-time college hoops

This week, on the (tar) heels of revelations of 18 years of systemic academic fraud that should have brought shame and shame-driven change to University of North Carolina student-athletics, the school instead prepared to reward its highest-paid beneficiary of the fraud, basketball coach Roy Williams, with a contract extension for a job well done.

...

So, for 18 years UNC pursued 18-year-olds, dangling full scholarships to play for its basketball team, no reading, writing or arithmetic wanted or needed. You wanna be a junior? Poof, you’re a junior! Senior? Done. Dean’s List? Dean Smith? Oh, that one! Sure! Just hurry up. Don’t be shut out of those imaginary classes!

The logical will conclude that North Carolina not only likes the way Williams had no idea about the academic realities of those he recruits to the college, but also UNC would like him to continue being — or at least playing — ignorant. Keep up the good work, Coach!

That's awesome/terrible even for a legendary sack of #### troll like Phil Mushnick.

 

[pantherclub]

FIFA scandal has nothing on sham that is big-time college hoops

This week, on the (tar) heels of revelations of 18 years of systemic academic fraud that should have brought shame and shame-driven change to University of North Carolina student-athletics, the school instead prepared to reward its highest-paid beneficiary of the fraud, basketball coach Roy Williams, with a contract extension for a job well done.

...

So, for 18 years UNC pursued 18-year-olds, dangling full scholarships to play for its basketball team, no reading, writing or arithmetic wanted or needed. You wanna be a junior? Poof, you’re a junior! Senior? Done. Dean’s List? Dean Smith? Oh, that one! Sure! Just hurry up. Don’t be shut out of those imaginary classes!

The logical will conclude that North Carolina not only likes the way Williams had no idea about the academic realities of those he recruits to the college, but also UNC would like him to continue being — or at least playing — ignorant. Keep up the good work, Coach!

That's awesome/terrible even for a legendary sack of #### troll like Phil Mushnick.

He is not wrong, Marvin Austin took a 400 level class his first semester freshman year. Care to debunk that?

 

[The Commish]

I asked my wife about this accreditation thing. Some of you may or may not know, but I find most of the concepts in our academic world to be really silly and inefficient, but that's for another thread. Anyway, I wasn't sure if it was me or not so I asked her if this "probation" would be a big deal to her. She's a tenured asst-professor at a local university and wanting to go somewhere else that has the infrastructure to handle the heart research she's doing. She didn't bat an eye in saying "no". She didn't believe the school would ever lose accreditation across the board so as long as it wasn't a department she was wanting to go to, she didn't think it'd matter. I asked her about the research side and impact there and she was of the belief that it might come into consideration when choosing between UNC and several other schools but it would be a "tie breaker" WAY down the list. The bottom line is the NIH and orgs like them are after the research (and the data it produces) before all else. So if good things are happening there, they'd continue funneling funds to those doing the good work.

Anecdotal, I know, but that was her opinion. Take it for what it's worth

 

[TobiasFunke]

FIFA scandal has nothing on sham that is big-time college hoops

This week, on the (tar) heels of revelations of 18 years of systemic academic fraud that should have brought shame and shame-driven change to University of North Carolina student-athletics, the school instead prepared to reward its highest-paid beneficiary of the fraud, basketball coach Roy Williams, with a contract extension for a job well done.

...

So, for 18 years UNC pursued 18-year-olds, dangling full scholarships to play for its basketball team, no reading, writing or arithmetic wanted or needed. You wanna be a junior? Poof, you’re a junior! Senior? Done. Dean’s List? Dean Smith? Oh, that one! Sure! Just hurry up. Don’t be shut out of those imaginary classes!

The logical will conclude that North Carolina not only likes the way Williams had no idea about the academic realities of those he recruits to the college, but also UNC would like him to continue being — or at least playing — ignorant. Keep up the good work, Coach!

That's awesome/terrible even for a legendary sack of #### troll like Phil Mushnick.

He is not wrong, Marvin Austin took a 400 level class his first semester freshman year. Care to debunk that?

Marvin Austin the football player? The entire nonsensical rant is about Roy Williams.

I recommend perusing the Phil Mushnick archives over at Deadspin before you commit to getting in bed with this guy. Here's a sample of his work:

As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new "urban" home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment?

Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N———s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B——hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!

Having Phil Mushnick on your side is not something you want.

 

[pantherclub]

^ neither is marvin austin

I think you misread the article, its about UNC as a whole

 

[The Commish]

Just what we need on a Friday

 

[TobiasFunke]

^ neither is marvin austin

I think you misread the article, its about UNC as a whole

Stop. It's Phil Mushnick. He's the print version of Skip Bayless. You lose credibility if you cite to his work to back up any claim on anything. There is one and only one appropriate reaction to him, and that his to laugh at his utter stupidity.

I mean the headline and the first paragraph compares an academic scandal in which some people got grades at a university that they didn't earn to a bribery scandal that has resulted in slavery and death. If you got past that point and thought to yourself "let me see what else this thoughtful gentleman has to say!" I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Tau837]

I just posted it because I thought the part I quoted was funny.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I just posted it because I thought the part I quoted was funny.

A hilarious Mushnick column on a subject of interest is always welcome on a Friday afternoon.

 

[Frostillicus]

I just want to thank you guys for the introduction to Mushnick and that deadspin page. He's fantastic.

 

[RUSF18]

I just want to thank you guys for the introduction to Mushnick and that deadspin page. He's fantastic.

My father has always been an enormous Mushnick fan. Yuuuuuuuuge. Even writes him emails. So much so that I can credit Mushnick for making me realize that my father is an #######.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Another balanced take: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/6/5/8735807/north-carolina-basketball-academic-scandal-ncaa-2015

From what I saw from an admittedly biased insider: UNC is working with the NCAA on "self imposed penalties" and those penalties have almost no effect on Men's Basketball.

Should be a good moment at both IC and Pack Pride when they are announced.

 

[Tau837]

Another balanced take: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/6/5/8735807/north-carolina-basketball-academic-scandal-ncaa-2015

From what I saw from an admittedly biased insider: UNC is working with the NCAA on "self imposed penalties" and those penalties have almost no effect on Men's Basketball.

Should be a good moment at both IC and Pack Pride when they are announced.

I don't think that article says anything of substance. It was written 11 days ago, so it is a bit outdated now. It ignores the facts that could support serious punishment. For example:

1. I already posted about the NOA a couple of times several days ago. There seems to be plenty of info about athletes who violated eligibility. If the NCAA chooses to do so, they could levy serious punishment for that.

2. The redacted NOA released by UNC is exactly that -- a version redacted by UNC as it sees fit before release. As I understand it, UNC has broad latitude in what it chooses to redact. Also, out of 325 supporting exhibits, UNC's release says for 49 of them that "The University has not received and does not have custody of this record." So there is no way for the public to know the substance of those exhibits.


I'm not saying that any serious punishment is coming, but the opportunity is there for the NCAA if they want to take it.

ETA: Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I guess we wait.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Another balanced take: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/6/5/8735807/north-carolina-basketball-academic-scandal-ncaa-2015

From what I saw from an admittedly biased insider: UNC is working with the NCAA on "self imposed penalties" and those penalties have almost no effect on Men's Basketball.

Should be a good moment at both IC and Pack Pride when they are announced.

I don't think that article says anything of substance. It was written 11 days ago, so it is a bit outdated now. It ignores the facts that could support serious punishment. For example:

1. I already posted about the NOA a couple of times several days ago. There seems to be plenty of info about athletes who violated eligibility. If the NCAA chooses to do so, they could levy serious punishment for that.

2. The redacted NOA released by UNC is exactly that -- a version redacted by UNC as it sees fit before release. As I understand it, UNC has broad latitude in what it chooses to redact. Also, out of 325 supporting exhibits, UNC's release says for 49 of them that "The University has not received and does not have custody of this record." So there is no way for the public to know the substance of those exhibits.


I'm not saying that any serious punishment is coming, but the opportunity is there for the NCAA if they want to take it.

ETA: Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

And to be fair about your ETA.....I'm searching the Thompson and Valvano "scandals" on the internet and I don't see any mention of NC State "self-imposing" or taking responsibility ahead of the NCAA's punishment. It seems to be the opposite, as you would expect and see at almost every university. Do you have different information about that?

 

[The Commish]

I've lost track. What happened to the faculty that were a part of all these faux classes? Still there? Some fired? All fired?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've lost track. What happened to the faculty that were a part of all these faux classes? Still there? Some fired? All fired?

Promoted!

 

[The Commish]

I've lost track. What happened to the faculty that were a part of all these faux classes? Still there? Some fired? All fired?

Promoted!

really? well that's just stupid on UNC's part then

 

[pantherclub]

Another balanced take: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/6/5/8735807/north-carolina-basketball-academic-scandal-ncaa-2015

From what I saw from an admittedly biased insider: UNC is working with the NCAA on "self imposed penalties" and those penalties have almost no effect on Men's Basketball.

Should be a good moment at both IC and Pack Pride when they are announced.

I don't think that article says anything of substance. It was written 11 days ago, so it is a bit outdated now. It ignores the facts that could support serious punishment. For example:

1. I already posted about the NOA a couple of times several days ago. There seems to be plenty of info about athletes who violated eligibility. If the NCAA chooses to do so, they could levy serious punishment for that.

2. The redacted NOA released by UNC is exactly that -- a version redacted by UNC as it sees fit before release. As I understand it, UNC has broad latitude in what it chooses to redact. Also, out of 325 supporting exhibits, UNC's release says for 49 of them that "The University has not received and does not have custody of this record." So there is no way for the public to know the substance of those exhibits.

I'm not saying that any serious punishment is coming, but the opportunity is there for the NCAA if they want to take it.

ETA: Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

And to be fair about your ETA.....I'm searching the Thompson and Valvano "scandals" on the internet and I don't see any mention of NC State "self-imposing" or taking responsibility ahead of the NCAA's punishment. It seems to be the opposite, as you would expect and see at almost every university. Do you have different information about that?

Ncsu most certainly self imposed in the early 90's

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I've lost track. What happened to the faculty that were a part of all these faux classes? Still there? Some fired? All fired?

Promoted!

really? well that's just stupid on UNC's part then

Sorry, I should have added a

Fired, quit.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Another balanced take: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/6/5/8735807/north-carolina-basketball-academic-scandal-ncaa-2015

From what I saw from an admittedly biased insider: UNC is working with the NCAA on "self imposed penalties" and those penalties have almost no effect on Men's Basketball.

Should be a good moment at both IC and Pack Pride when they are announced.

I don't think that article says anything of substance. It was written 11 days ago, so it is a bit outdated now. It ignores the facts that could support serious punishment. For example:

1. I already posted about the NOA a couple of times several days ago. There seems to be plenty of info about athletes who violated eligibility. If the NCAA chooses to do so, they could levy serious punishment for that.

2. The redacted NOA released by UNC is exactly that -- a version redacted by UNC as it sees fit before release. As I understand it, UNC has broad latitude in what it chooses to redact. Also, out of 325 supporting exhibits, UNC's release says for 49 of them that "The University has not received and does not have custody of this record." So there is no way for the public to know the substance of those exhibits.

I'm not saying that any serious punishment is coming, but the opportunity is there for the NCAA if they want to take it.

ETA: Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

And to be fair about your ETA.....I'm searching the Thompson and Valvano "scandals" on the internet and I don't see any mention of NC State "self-imposing" or taking responsibility ahead of the NCAA's punishment. It seems to be the opposite, as you would expect and see at almost every university. Do you have different information about that?

Ncsu most certainly self imposed in the early 90's

Before evidence or talking to the NCAA? Do you have a link?

ETA: I see I worded it poorly. I meant "ahead of information/NOA from the NCAA".

 

[pantherclub]

^ I am not sure what you are asking.

They (NCSU) knew they were going to get hit so they went to the NCAA with their self imposed penalties and the NCAA agreed to them. IMO and pretty much everyone else NCSU shot themselves in the foot because the sanctions they imposed were way worse than the penalty itself. The NCAA investigator had nothing but praise for Valvano.

I have a meeting now and I will get a link later. Google Valvano NCAA letter or something like that and you will see

 

[ConstruxBoy]

http://www.statefansnation.com/2012/08/flashback-ncaa-report-on-the-nc-state-scandal/

Here's the link where it says that they self-imposed AFTER hearing/seeing evidence from the NCAA to avoid a TV ban. That's the way self-imposing works. Like a plea bargain. You see the evidence and get a handle on possible penalties and THEN you negotiate/plea down to get 2/3 or 3/4 of the original punishment.

So I'm not sure why JWB or any State fan would think UNC would self-impose penalties BEFORE the NCAA sent the NOA a couple of weeks ago. No school does that.

Now, if we go 2.5 months until their response and then a couple more months until the NCAA imposes penalties, I agree that it looks bad (relatively speaking of course) for UNC. But that's a long way off.

 

[pantherclub]

https://chandlert.wordpress.com/jim-valvano/ncaa-investigator-quote/

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Right, so he heard from the NCAA that some punishment was coming, hence "Don't leave".

Anyway, I think I've made my point. Neither UNC or NC State or any school would have self imposed any penalties before getting the NOA/hearing from the NCAA.

If UNC does not work with the NCAA to self impose penalties before the NCAA ultimately rules, I will be disappointed in the school leadership.

 

[Tau837]

Another balanced take: http://www.sbnation.com/college-basketball/2015/6/5/8735807/north-carolina-basketball-academic-scandal-ncaa-2015

From what I saw from an admittedly biased insider: UNC is working with the NCAA on "self imposed penalties" and those penalties have almost no effect on Men's Basketball.

Should be a good moment at both IC and Pack Pride when they are announced.

I don't think that article says anything of substance. It was written 11 days ago, so it is a bit outdated now. It ignores the facts that could support serious punishment. For example:

1. I already posted about the NOA a couple of times several days ago. There seems to be plenty of info about athletes who violated eligibility. If the NCAA chooses to do so, they could levy serious punishment for that.

2. The redacted NOA released by UNC is exactly that -- a version redacted by UNC as it sees fit before release. As I understand it, UNC has broad latitude in what it chooses to redact. Also, out of 325 supporting exhibits, UNC's release says for 49 of them that "The University has not received and does not have custody of this record." So there is no way for the public to know the substance of those exhibits.


I'm not saying that any serious punishment is coming, but the opportunity is there for the NCAA if they want to take it.

ETA: Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

And to be fair about your ETA.....I'm searching the Thompson and Valvano "scandals" on the internet and I don't see any mention of NC State "self-imposing" or taking responsibility ahead of the NCAA's punishment. It seems to be the opposite, as you would expect and see at almost every university. Do you have different information about that?

First off, I didn't say anything about whether or not UNC or any other university should self-impose penalties or, if they choose to do so, when they should do it.

Second, I didn't mention N.C. State at all. But it is absolutely true that State self-imposed penalties as a result of the Valvano era investigation. And they were harsh penalties. Overly harsh. Here were the self-imposed penalties:

1. No off-campus recruiting and no official paid visits for the 1989-90 academic year.
2. A reduction of basketball scholarships from 15 to 12 for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 academic years.
3. A reduction in the men’s basketball coaching staff for the 1989-90 and 1990-91 academic years to one head coach, two assistant coaches and one of the two other coaches permitted by NCAA legislation.
4. And, oh yeah, they fired Valvano.

To that self-imposed punishment, the NCAA added a 2 year probation and a postseason ban in 1989-90.

All of that due to players selling complimentary shoes and tickets over a period of four seasons and an associated lack of institutional control over those areas (complimentary shoes and tickets).

I would be shocked if UNC self-imposed anything remotely as serious upon itself even though IMO their violations are more extensive and severe.

Third, of course N.C. State didn't self-impose penalties for the David Thompson situation. That was a complete travesty, and, to make matters worse, it was initiated by UNC (Smith/Guthridge) driven by their own self-interest.

 

[tdoss]

I thought UNC was prepping everyone to accept women's basketball as the sacrificial lamb?

 

[Tau837]

I'm not sure why JWB or any State fan would think UNC would self-impose penalties BEFORE the NCAA sent the NOA a couple of weeks ago.

I never said that. I said:

Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

The point is not that UNC should have self-imposed penalties before now. The point is that no one should interpret any previous or ongoing actions or statements by UNC on this subject to be representative of the real merits of the case.

 

[Tau837]

Anyway, I think I've made my point. Neither UNC or NC State or any school would have self imposed any penalties before getting the NOA/hearing from the NCAA.

Yes, you made a point to address a strawman no one else was discussing.

If UNC does not work with the NCAA to self impose penalties before the NCAA ultimately rules, I will be disappointed in the school leadership.

If you aren't already disappointed in the university's leadership given all that has happened, I'm surprised that anything else could happen that would change that.

 

[pantherclub]

Right, so he heard from the NCAA that some punishment was coming, hence "Don't leave".

Anyway, I think I've made my point. Neither UNC or NC State or any school would have self imposed any penalties before getting the NOA/hearing from the NCAA.

If UNC does not work with the NCAA to self impose penalties before the NCAA ultimately rules, I will be disappointed in the school leadership.

I think most schools try and do this to a degree to gain back some leverage. If UNC doesnt and keeps up with the "if the penalties are harsh we will sue" then they are in for a rude surprise

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Anyway, I think I've made my point. Neither UNC or NC State or any school would have self imposed any penalties before getting the NOA/hearing from the NCAA.

Yes, you made a point to address a strawman no one else was discussing.

If UNC does not work with the NCAA to self impose penalties before the NCAA ultimately rules, I will be disappointed in the school leadership.

If you aren't already disappointed in the university's leadership given all that has happened, I'm surprised that anything else could happen that would change that.

Man, you are a downer. Geez. I misinterpreted your post. Sorry about that. Wasn't purposefully creating a strawman.

And yes, pot kettle black re: strawman, I am already disappointed in school leadership. Never said otherwise.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm not sure why JWB or any State fan would think UNC would self-impose penalties BEFORE the NCAA sent the NOA a couple of weeks ago.

I never said that. I said:

Not sure why anyone would find it surprising that any penalties UNC self-imposes would not touch the golden goose of MBB. UNC's approach to the evolving scandal for 5 years running has been to downplay, minimize, obfuscate, etc. They have hardly had an attitude of taking responsibility for their actions.

The point is not that UNC should have self-imposed penalties before now. The point is that no one should interpret any previous or ongoing actions or statements by UNC on this subject to be representative of the real merits of the case.

See, you could have just ended the discussion with this post.

 

[Tau837]

And yes, pot kettle black re: strawman, I am already disappointed in school leadership. Never said otherwise.

Touche.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

And yes, pot kettle black re: strawman, I am already disappointed in school leadership. Never said otherwise.

Touche.

Terrible, embarrassing situation for my team, but appreciate your ability to stay above the fray.

 

[Tau837]

Letter to editor from UConn professor:

Morgan Randall’s opinion, in his June 27 letter “UNC players not at fault in scandal” citing student-athletes enrolled in bogus courses are victims and should be not blamed, is not only myopic but naive.

Having admitted the courses were insufficient, how does he feel about accepting fraudulent credit or watered down requirements that other students worked so hard to attain honestly? How can he look into the eyes of his nonathletic student friends and say he earned that grade? Should he not adhere to the same rigorous standards as all other students?

Claiming the university to be at fault for creating these bogus classes is accurate. But saying that working hard on the gridiron gave him some sort of privilege to cheat the academic process is unworthy; he was an opportunist, not a victim. He was as culpable as his coaches and advisees and could be called a co-conspirator.

The registrar’s office should examine the transcripts of every student enrolled in these classes. After erasing the “unearned grades,” those students failing to meet the minimal total credit hours or GPA for graduation should have their degrees rescinded and returned.

That’s what great universities do; they correct their wrongs.

DAVID N. CAMAIONE
PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Letter to editor from UConn professor:

Morgan Randall’s opinion, in his June 27 letter “UNC players not at fault in scandal” citing student-athletes enrolled in bogus courses are victims and should be not blamed, is not only myopic but naive.

Having admitted the courses were insufficient, how does he feel about accepting fraudulent credit or watered down requirements that other students worked so hard to attain honestly? How can he look into the eyes of his nonathletic student friends and say he earned that grade? Should he not adhere to the same rigorous standards as all other students?

Claiming the university to be at fault for creating these bogus classes is accurate. But saying that working hard on the gridiron gave him some sort of privilege to cheat the academic process is unworthy; he was an opportunist, not a victim. He was as culpable as his coaches and advisees and could be called a co-conspirator.

The registrar’s office should examine the transcripts of every student enrolled in these classes. After erasing the “unearned grades,” those students failing to meet the minimal total credit hours or GPA for graduation should have their degrees rescinded and returned.

That’s what great universities do; they correct their wrongs.

DAVID N. CAMAIONE
PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

I think that's a pretty stupid idea to be honest with you, but I don't care enough to really argue about it, other than to say that I think it's reasonable that some students, especially the non-athletes (but maybe even some of them) just thought that's how "rocks for jocks" classes worked.

Just for example, I took an "easy" class at Penn State, Philosophy, that did meet, but didn't take attendance, had two scheduled quizzes and a final exam. You could buy the notes for every class at Nittany Notes. There were a bunch of football players in the class, Ki-Jana Carter probably being the most famous one, and they barely showed up after the first class, other than quiz days. I skipped it a bunch as well since it was 8am on Tuesday and Thursday. So that's what I thought an "easy" class was at Penn State.

But had they just said no classes at all, here is the material, exam or paper at the end of the semester, I would have just thought that's what an "easy" class was. I didn't have any other point of reference really.

Of course, this was in the early 90s. In this day and age with the internet and social media, maybe all college students know exactly how an "easy" class should be and would know immediately that a class like the second one I described was "fake".

Anyway, I doubt this gets much play with UNC administrators.

 

[Tau837]

Letter to editor from UConn professor:

Morgan Randalls opinion, in his June 27 letter UNC players not at fault in scandal citing student-athletes enrolled in bogus courses are victims and should be not blamed, is not only myopic but naive.

Having admitted the courses were insufficient, how does he feel about accepting fraudulent credit or watered down requirements that other students worked so hard to attain honestly? How can he look into the eyes of his nonathletic student friends and say he earned that grade? Should he not adhere to the same rigorous standards as all other students?

Claiming the university to be at fault for creating these bogus classes is accurate. But saying that working hard on the gridiron gave him some sort of privilege to cheat the academic process is unworthy; he was an opportunist, not a victim. He was as culpable as his coaches and advisees and could be called a co-conspirator.

The registrars office should examine the transcripts of every student enrolled in these classes. After erasing the unearned grades, those students failing to meet the minimal total credit hours or GPA for graduation should have their degrees rescinded and returned.

Thats what great universities do; they correct their wrongs.

DAVID N. CAMAIONE

PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

I think that's a pretty stupid idea to be honest with you, but I don't care enough to really argue about it, other than to say that I think it's reasonable that some students, especially the non-athletes (but maybe even some of them) just thought that's how "rocks for jocks" classes worked.Just for example, I took an "easy" class at Penn State, Philosophy, that did meet, but didn't take attendance, had two scheduled quizzes and a final exam. You could buy the notes for every class at Nittany Notes. There were a bunch of football players in the class, Ki-Jana Carter probably being the most famous one, and they barely showed up after the first class, other than quiz days. I skipped it a bunch as well since it was 8am on Tuesday and Thursday. So that's what I thought an "easy" class was at Penn State.

But had they just said no classes at all, here is the material, exam or paper at the end of the semester, I would have just thought that's what an "easy" class was. I didn't have any other point of reference really.

Of course, this was in the early 90s. In this day and age with the internet and social media, maybe all college students know exactly how an "easy" class should be and would know immediately that a class like the second one I described was "fake".

Anyway, I doubt this gets much play with UNC administrators.

It would be shocking to me if UNC followed this guy's suggestions. But I still think his letter is on point on the merits.

As for your example, sounds like you had to learn something and pass some quizzes/tests to get a grade, so, while it may have been easy, it was not fake. Apples and oranges.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Letter to editor from UConn professor:

Morgan Randalls opinion, in his June 27 letter UNC players not at fault in scandal citing student-athletes enrolled in bogus courses are victims and should be not blamed, is not only myopic but naive.

Having admitted the courses were insufficient, how does he feel about accepting fraudulent credit or watered down requirements that other students worked so hard to attain honestly? How can he look into the eyes of his nonathletic student friends and say he earned that grade? Should he not adhere to the same rigorous standards as all other students?

Claiming the university to be at fault for creating these bogus classes is accurate. But saying that working hard on the gridiron gave him some sort of privilege to cheat the academic process is unworthy; he was an opportunist, not a victim. He was as culpable as his coaches and advisees and could be called a co-conspirator.

The registrars office should examine the transcripts of every student enrolled in these classes. After erasing the unearned grades, those students failing to meet the minimal total credit hours or GPA for graduation should have their degrees rescinded and returned.

Thats what great universities do; they correct their wrongs.

DAVID N. CAMAIONE

PROFESSOR EMERITUS, UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

I think that's a pretty stupid idea to be honest with you, but I don't care enough to really argue about it, other than to say that I think it's reasonable that some students, especially the non-athletes (but maybe even some of them) just thought that's how "rocks for jocks" classes worked.Just for example, I took an "easy" class at Penn State, Philosophy, that did meet, but didn't take attendance, had two scheduled quizzes and a final exam. You could buy the notes for every class at Nittany Notes. There were a bunch of football players in the class, Ki-Jana Carter probably being the most famous one, and they barely showed up after the first class, other than quiz days. I skipped it a bunch as well since it was 8am on Tuesday and Thursday. So that's what I thought an "easy" class was at Penn State.

But had they just said no classes at all, here is the material, exam or paper at the end of the semester, I would have just thought that's what an "easy" class was. I didn't have any other point of reference really.

Of course, this was in the early 90s. In this day and age with the internet and social media, maybe all college students know exactly how an "easy" class should be and would know immediately that a class like the second one I described was "fake".

Anyway, I doubt this gets much play with UNC administrators.

It would be shocking to me if UNC followed this guy's suggestions. But I still think his letter is on point on the merits.

As for your example, sounds like you had to learn something and pass some quizzes/tests to get a grade, so, while it may have been easy, it was not fake. Apples and oranges.

I understand what you're saying makes sense in retrospect, but at the time I started the class, if they just told me to study some Philosophy and write a short paper at the end of the course, I'm not sure I would have thought it was fake.Just easy.

Now, knowing that, hypothetically, even if I put effort in my paper, if they gave people who put in no effort the same grade as me(which happened at UNC) then yes, I would know it was fake or fishy.

But the professor is making the assumption that every student that took a course knew for sure that it was fake when they were taking it. I find that notion ridiculous. So in his opinion, a B student who needed an easy class his last semester Senior year and took one of these courses should now have those 3 credits struck from his transcript and his degree taken away even though he is currently 40 years old with a family and job. I think if you truly believe that should happen, then you are thinking with your ABC bias and not your brain.

However, if you want to examine all the data to see how many credit hours each student took in these classes and find the ones that had 40-50% or more of their credit hours in these classes and strip their degrees, that makes more sense to me. I think there is still the possibility that a AFAM major could have taken 50% real courses and 50% paper courses and not really deserve to have it taken away. To me that student is less a "blight" on the university than the athlete that was a General Studies major or whatever and took 40-50% of his credit hours in paper courses knowing they were fake to keep his or her eligibility.

 

[Tau837]

Maybe it would help to post the letter to which the UConn professor responded. An excerpt:

The “paper classes” at the heart of the UNC scandal have widely been condemned as insufficient to qualify as college credit. Having taken two of these classes, I can confirm this to be the case. And while the courses took relatively little effort, no one questions whether I fulfilled their requirements.

So he knew the difference and didn't care. Here is another letter that addresses this same point, i.e., knowing the classes were fake:

Regarding Morgan Randall’s June 27 letter “UNC players not at fault in scandal”: In that letter, Randall quoted coach Butch Davis as saying: “If you wanted to get a real education, you should have gone to Harvard.”

Randall, a former football player at UNC, stated that the student-athletes were just doing as they had been told when they took the specious paper courses at UNC.

I did go to Harvard, and I was a student-athlete there. I was on the track and cross country teams, which took five hours a day, seven days a week, not counting the endless bus rides we took to meets.

I remember a course I took there titled “Criminology.” I received an A for going to class and writing one 15-page paper. The class was filled with many athletes, mostly hockey and football players.

I decided that my time was too valuable to take courses like that again and decided not to take another one like it, and I didn’t.

Randall stated he took two paper courses at UNC. So my question is: Why take the second paper course after finding out the first paper course was a sham? He had a responsibility to get the best education available, and he didn’t do that.

I agree it is impractical to go back decades and revoke degrees, but doing nothing about it seems equally questionable. I'm sure if the university brain trust put their minds to it, they could come up with some middle ground measures that would make sense. For example:
1. Perhaps the university should offer free online courses to any alumni with these courses on their transcripts.

2. Certainly, if there are students who have not yet achieved degrees and are carrying credit from any of the fake classes, those credits should be stricken.

3. As you suggest, perhaps the university should seek to identify alumni who clearly took advantage of this system by taking some threshold number of the fake classes and revoke their degrees.

These suggestions are pretty obvious and required no critical thought. The university could easily come up with a defined approach for doing something about the situation.

As for this:

I think there is still the possibility that a AFAM major could have taken 50% real courses and 50% paper courses and not really deserve to have it taken away.

We can agree to disagree on that. IMO that very clearly does not meet the threshold for deserving a college degree, at least not from a university with the reputation UNC has (or at least had), i.e., oldest public university in the U.S., "Public Ivy", etc.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Maybe it would help to post the letter to which the UConn professor responded. An excerpt:

The “paper classes” at the heart of the UNC scandal have widely been condemned as insufficient to qualify as college credit. Having taken two of these classes, I can confirm this to be the case. And while the courses took relatively little effort, no one questions whether I fulfilled their requirements.

So he knew the difference and didn't care. Here is another letter that addresses this same point, i.e., knowing the classes were fake:

Regarding Morgan Randall’s June 27 letter “UNC players not at fault in scandal”: In that letter, Randall quoted coach Butch Davis as saying: “If you wanted to get a real education, you should have gone to Harvard.”

Randall, a former football player at UNC, stated that the student-athletes were just doing as they had been told when they took the specious paper courses at UNC.

I did go to Harvard, and I was a student-athlete there. I was on the track and cross country teams, which took five hours a day, seven days a week, not counting the endless bus rides we took to meets.

I remember a course I took there titled “Criminology.” I received an A for going to class and writing one 15-page paper. The class was filled with many athletes, mostly hockey and football players.

I decided that my time was too valuable to take courses like that again and decided not to take another one like it, and I didn’t.

Randall stated he took two paper courses at UNC. So my question is: Why take the second paper course after finding out the first paper course was a sham? He had a responsibility to get the best education available, and he didn’t do that.

I agree it is impractical to go back decades and revoke degrees, but doing nothing about it seems equally questionable. I'm sure if the university brain trust put their minds to it, they could come up with some middle ground measures that would make sense. For example:
1. Perhaps the university should offer free online courses to any alumni with these courses on their transcripts.

2. Certainly, if there are students who have not yet achieved degrees and are carrying credit from any of the fake classes, those credits should be stricken.

3. As you suggest, perhaps the university should seek to identify alumni who clearly took advantage of this system by taking some threshold number of the fake classes and revoke their degrees.

These suggestions are pretty obvious and required no critical thought. The university could easily come up with a defined approach for doing something about the situation.

As for this:

I think there is still the possibility that a AFAM major could have taken 50% real courses and 50% paper courses and not really deserve to have it taken away.

We can agree to disagree on that. IMO that very clearly does not meet the threshold for deserving a college degree, at least not from a university with the reputation UNC has (or at least had), i.e., oldest public university in the U.S., "Public Ivy", etc.

I did not see the original letter. Thanks for that.

I do still think it's possible, or even likely, that some students took 2 or even 3 of these classes without realizing they were in fact "fake", rather than just "easy". I also suspect that some students did do some reasonable research/work on their end of semester paper. But regardless, you are correct that there are things that can be done.

I love your first suggestion actually. Give those who need to make up the classes a free online course selection and a reasonable amount of time to complete them, like several years depending on the number of credits needed. I also am in favor of making non-last semester current students make up those credits before graduating.

I think I would set a threshold, like two classes or 6 credit hours, as amnesty and any credits beyond that on a graduate's transcript needed to be made up, using online courses if possible, in a reasonable amount of time.

Now, I don't expect UNC to do those things because their lawyers would go ape#### over the liability for lawsuits. Sometimes, OK, usually, lawsuits and dollars take precedent over the right thing to do. And really, that line of thinking is true at pretty much any school or organization. Given the same situation, I doubt that Harvard or Michigan or yes, even NC State, would open themselves to lawsuits by revoking degrees and wiping out transcripts. UNC is certainly not alone in that respect.

Regarding your last point, in retrospect, I agree with you. If half of your classes are run this way, you can't honestly think that AFAM is just an easy Major.

I continue to be interested in the angst, mainly from Wolfpack fans, over the "reputation" of UNC's academic standards. I understand the pleasure in seeing your rivals, some of whom bragged about their school, put in their place, so to speak. But legally, ethically, or morally, their academic reputation makes no difference. If this same exact thing had happened at NC State (and let's not pretend that's an impossible scenario), would it be "better" than what happened at UNC because NC State fans don't brag about their fantastic academic programs? I don't think so myself. Interested in what others think.

It actually reminds me of the Sandusky scandal when in an thread on another site, some user kept emphasizing that Sandusky had run a children's charity. When I asked the user whether it would have made any difference had Sandusky just been a normal Defensive Coordinator with a family, this poster insisted that it did. Most of the other users in the thread disagreed, but it was an interesting debate.

 

[Tau837]

I continue to be interested in the angst, mainly from Wolfpack fans, over the "reputation" of UNC's academic standards. I understand the pleasure in seeing your rivals, some of whom bragged about their school, put in their place, so to speak. But legally, ethically, or morally, their academic reputation makes no difference. If this same exact thing had happened at NC State (and let's not pretend that's an impossible scenario), would it be "better" than what happened at UNC because NC State fans don't brag about their fantastic academic programs? I don't think so myself. Interested in what others think.

If you think I have angst over UNC's academic reputation, you are mistaken. I couldn't care less about UNC's academic reputation. I do care about the systemic cheating and seeing it properly punished.

Also, N.C. State has a lot of impressive academic programs. Don't assume otherwise just because we alums don't feel compelled to brag about it like UNC alums.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I continue to be interested in the angst, mainly from Wolfpack fans, over the "reputation" of UNC's academic standards. I understand the pleasure in seeing your rivals, some of whom bragged about their school, put in their place, so to speak. But legally, ethically, or morally, their academic reputation makes no difference. If this same exact thing had happened at NC State (and let's not pretend that's an impossible scenario), would it be "better" than what happened at UNC because NC State fans don't brag about their fantastic academic programs? I don't think so myself. Interested in what others think.

If you think I have angst over UNC's academic reputation, you are mistaken. I couldn't care less about UNC's academic reputation. I do care about the systemic cheating and seeing it properly punished.

Also, N.C. State has a lot of impressive academic programs. Don't assume otherwise just because we alums don't feel compelled to brag about it like UNC alums.

LOL, I'm sure they do. I laugh because in my wife's family the name for NC State is "Moo U", which is funny to me because my Alma Mater, Penn State, was known as an Agricultural school for a long time. It still has excellent Ag degrees and plays its football games next to cow pastures.

Have a great holiday.

 

[Tau837]

UNC reports new violations to NCAA that should delay infractions case

North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham announced Friday afternoon that the school has uncovered additional violations in women's basketball and men's soccer that will delay a resolution to UNC's case with the NCAA.

...the timing basically ensures UNC won't be punished before National Signing Day for football or the 2016 NCAA Tournament, meaning Roy Williams' Tar Heels, a possible preseason No. 1, now run almost no risk of being banned from this upcoming season's postseason. In other words, in a twisted way, these newly discovered potential violations could prove helpful to the sports that matter most in Chapel Hill.

I am shocked that UNC has uncovered more violations. And even more shocked that this will ensure no sanctions before the 2016 MBB season is over. I'm sure you are all equally shocked.

UNC is really pioneering a new way to deal with NCAA violations, given that this will push them into a sixth year of this debacle, with no substantive penalties enforced to date.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

UNC reports new violations to NCAA that should delay infractions case

North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham announced Friday afternoon that the school has uncovered additional violations in women's basketball and men's soccer that will delay a resolution to UNC's case with the NCAA.

...the timing basically ensures UNC won't be punished before National Signing Day for football or the 2016 NCAA Tournament, meaning Roy Williams' Tar Heels, a possible preseason No. 1, now run almost no risk of being banned from this upcoming season's postseason. In other words, in a twisted way, these newly discovered potential violations could prove helpful to the sports that matter most in Chapel Hill.

I am shocked that UNC has uncovered more violations. And even more shocked that this will ensure no sanctions before the 2016 MBB season is over. I'm sure you are all equally shocked.

UNC is really pioneering a new way to deal with NCAA violations, given that this will push them into a sixth year of this debacle, with no substantive penalties enforced to date.

We're innovators, baby!

 

[Johnny Rock]

How about, "Here's the Death Penalty for now, and we'll revisit more severe sanctions once the soccer and rowing violations are investigated?" Ineptitude.

 

[pantherclub]

I truly don't understand how they can be so careless all things considered