"Hearing that the #UNC Notice of Allegations will be released Thursday morning"

[UConnSwag11]

ACCSports.com ‏@ACCSports
Hearing that the #UNC Notice of Allegations will be released Thursday morning..........We're following any and all new developments

 

[Letsgohuskies11]

this is the notice right and not the punishment?

 

[SouthBayHusky]

Let's hope the NCAA sends a clear message to UNC, and let's hope that message is not one of preferential treatment.

 

[SouthBayHusky]

this is the notice right and not the punishment?

Yep. This is sort of like a complaint. . The next phase is sort of the discovery and response by UNC. Then the punishment phase after. and let's hope that punishment includes postseason ban this year. My guess is that UNC may try to drag this out somehow past the deadline for a postseason ban for this season

 

[uchusky32]

Hear ye, hear ye!

Nothing to see here felllas!

 

[Chin Diesel]

This is the public release of the notice that UNC got a few weeks ago. Before it gets released they have to redact personal information to comply with state and federal laws.

 

[epark88]

https://www.google.com/search?q=popcorn+ &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=popcorn+eating+

I'm juuust gonna leave this here for everybody...

 

[FeedTheDove]

 

[Jerry1714]

Brett McMurphy ‏@McMurphyESPN 14m14 minutes ago
UNC will release NCAA’s Notice of Allegations today, source told @ESPN. UNC received NOA on May 22

 

[Jaker]

This will drag out for years, book it

 

[Jerry1714]

This will drag out for years, book it

It took 9 months from the time Cuse received their notice of allegations and the NCAA issued their penalties. Timeline for this should be similar.

 

[Letsgohuskies11]

It took 9 months from the time Cuse received their notice of allegations and the NCAA issued their penalties. Timeline for this should be similar.

just in time for them to get to the NCAA tournament next year

 

[Jerry1714]

just in time for them to get to the NCAA tournament next year

I do not know why anyone wants them to be banned this year and not in the future.

If you want to hurt UNC you let them in the tourney this year and ban the next year, this affects recruiting for the future. Right now their team is what it is, it is not changing. Ban in 2017 players jump ship and recruits go elsewhere.

 

[Scot-e]

And vacate it the year after. (JK I am sure they are pure as virgin snow at this point) I am however still curious about Quse's lone NC- they were dirty as a Thai prostitute when they won.

 

[Leebo]

I do not know why anyone wants them to be banned this year and not in the future.

Presumably because they're a team that is predicted as a final four team preseason.

 

[Jerry1714]

Presumably because they're a team that is predicted as a final four team preseason.

This is an example of the absurdity of the boneyard. Everyone complained that Cuse got banned this year because they were not going to win it and not in the future, but people want UNC banned this year because they are good.

If it does not fit perfectly into people's needs and views here they think its a conspiracy or the NCAA has an agenda.

 

[pepband99]

No, everybody complained about Cuse because they were banned ONLY this year, and only after they were unlikely to go, anyway. I think the assumption was that 1) they should have been banned more than this year, and 2) UNC's will be worse.

 

[Leebo]

This is an example of the absurdity of the boneyard. Everyone complained that Cuse got banned this year because they were not going to win it and not in the future, but people want UNC banned this year because they are good.

If it does not fit perfectly into people's needs and views here they think its a conspiracy or the NCAA has an agenda.

Um... huh? I didn't suggest any kind of conspiratorial aspect, I merely suggested why people would prefer one way or the other... the schadenfreude of seeing a preseason top 3 team get banned would be nice, and it's disappointing to see a team we hate "ban" themselves when they were bad anyway.

 

[Yankees32123]

 

[Jerry1714]

http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf

 

[CallMeBruce]

So far, I'm seeing a lot of mentions about impermissible benefits and whatnot towards men's basketball players, so I'd be pretty surprised if they skated.

 

[tcf15]

Reading through it, it seems like it's only Level I violations. Am I reading that right?

Here's the NCAA definition of Level I violations:

Level I: Severe breach of conduct

Violations that seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA collegiate model as set forth in the Constitution and bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.

Examples of violations

Level I

• Lack of institutional control.
• Academic fraud.
• Failure to cooperate in an NCAA enforcement investigation.
• Individual unethical or dishonest conduct.
• Head coach responsibility violation by a head coach resulting from an underlying Level I violation by an individual within the sport program.

 

[CallMeBruce]

There are some parts where they're talking about kids getting papers written, or at least edited, by faculty. This is going to be a mess.

 

[Jerry1714]

NCAA to #UNC in its NOA: "the institution demonstrated a lack of institutional control by providing impermissible academic extra benefits.."

 

[upstater]

Skimmed through the entire thing looking for one big part I've been wondering about, and then I found this under the first "severe breach of conduct item":

FI232: July 30, 2014 – Interview transcript of Blanchard. This includes, but is not limited to, Blanchard's 2006 meeting with the faculty athletic committee concerning the anomalous courses offered in the AFRI/AFAM department. (JBlanchard_TR_073014_NorthCarolina_00231) FI233: July 7, 2017 – Interview transcript of Mercer. This includes, but is not limited to, Mercer reporting that some of the counselors in ASPSA worried how some student-athletes would stay in school once the institution stopped offering anomalous courses. (RMercer_TR_070714_NorthCarolina_00231)

The faculty athletic committee had coaches on it. Even Williams was present in the room but did not speak. One of the assistant coaches did.

In other words, way back in 2006 they discussed these problems openly, as brought to them by administrators, and they then proceeded to have a discussion (unreal!!) about how they could keep players eligible if they were to cancel the anoalous courses.

This is pretty clear evidence that the coaches knew these courses were used to keep players eligible.

If there's a smoking gun in the report, this is it.