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

[pepband99]

Glad you figured out how to use the reply function this time, good job.

I read your reply, it does nothing to change the point I made. Yes, people were upset Cuse got 1 year, I did not dispute that. Again, Cuse banned themselves on February 4th, this idea they were out of the tournament at this time is just wrong.

Cuse banning themselves Feb 4 is irrelevant - we're talking about the NCAA penalty here. Also, not sure why you think Cuse wasn't out at 15-7 with an RPI of 69 on Feb 4th. They were fringe at best, and that's just trying to be nice.

 

[Jerry1714]

Cuse banning themselves Feb 4 is irrelevant - we're talking about the NCAA penalty here. Also, not sure why you think Cuse wasn't out at 15-7 with an RPI of 69 on Feb 4th. They were fringe at best, and that's just trying to be nice.

Because it is February 4th. Do you know when the season ends?

The NCAA penalty was the accepting of the ban which occurred on February 4th, that is why it is relevant.

 

[pepband99]

Because it is February 4th. Do you know when the season ends?

So, you think a team with a 69 RPI on Feb 4 is a pretty good candidate for an at-large? Especially with their post-Feb 4 schedule of: @Pitt, @BC, dook, Ville, Pitt, @ND, @dook, UVA, @NCSt ? Anyone paying attention knew they were staring at at least 5 sure losses there.

And again, the reason people complained is that the NCAA accepted *only* the self-imposed ban timeline. Given their (at best) iffy at-large status, both those bans were essentially toothless. If the NCAA had extended it further, you would have heard absolutely no comment about the timing at all.

 

[Jerry1714]

So, you think a team with a 69 RPI on Feb 4 is a pretty good candidate for an at-large? Especially with their post-Feb 4 schedule of: @Pitt, @BC, dook, Ville, Pitt, @ND, @dook, UVA, @NCSt ? Anyone paying attention knew they were staring at at least 5 sure losses there.

And again, the reason people complained is that the NCAA accepted *only* the self-imposed ban timeline. Given their (at best) iffy at-large status, both those bans were essentially toothless. If the NCAA had extended it further, you would have heard absolutely no comment about the timing at all.

Did I say they were a "pretty good candidate for an at-large"? No, I am simply pointing out the stupidity in saying a team with 15 wins and a winning record in the ACC on February 4th had no shot at making the tournament and banned themselves because they already out of the tournament (which has been said in this thread).

 

[pepband99]

Did I say they were a "pretty good candidate for an at-large"? No, I am simply pointing out the stupidity in saying a team with 15 wins and a winning record in the ACC on February 4th had no shot at making the tournament and banned themselves because they already out of the tournament (which has been said in this thread).

No, you were just your usual wrong condescending self. Everyone else is stupid/absurd, blah blah blah. Forgive me if i don't hold your tournament prognostications in the highest regard, either.

 

[Jerry1714]

No, you were just your usual wrong condescending self. Everyone else is stupid/absurd, blah blah blah. Forgive me if i don't hold your tournament prognostications in the highest regard, either.

Haha, way to go back 1.5 years to find something I was wrong about. I am sure I could do the same for you, but I have a life. (I was really on an island with SMU too, crazy me)

But you are right Pep the season ends February 4th, sorry I am such an idiot for not recognizing that.

 

[Jaker]

meanwhile, Roy gets a contract extension... cant make this stuff up

http://www.scout.com/college/north-...e&hootPostID=cc19fe89a1955c59dde5e82f8b022330

Mediocrity pays

 

[intlzncster]

Make no mistake the NCAA is serious about these charges. In fact they have appointed a special prosecutor especially for this case: Rollo Tomassi.

Who in #$&$#%ck is rollo tomassi?

 

[mbt0512]

Don't believe this was already posted.. it's pretty on-point: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ant-to-punish-unc-basketball-for-fake-classes

 

[CallMeBruce]

Who in #$&$#%ck is rollo tomassi?

It's a reference to LA Confidential, I believe.

 

[Mike Honcho]

Who in #$&$#%ck is rollo tomassi?

Enzo Patoni's first cousin.

 

[nomar]

It's a reference to LA Confidential, I believe.

Shhhh

 

[UconnFanNVa]

So UNC is like a preseason #1 ranked team. Yet most likely if they face tournament ban(s) it wont be until next season. Same ole NCAA.

 

[CTBasketball]

UNC finalizing Roy Williams multi-million dollar extension...

 

[StoweD210]

Are UNC and the NCAA really going to try and spin it that the men's basketball team didn't have much involvement with any wrongdoing? That there were sham classes and a lack of institutional control, but that mainly affected the football and women's basketball teams. Their highest profile and most celebrated team, though, they weren't part of it.

That's impossible to take seriously, but it's almost admirable, in a way, if that's what they try to sell to everyone.

 

[MilliniumPrince]

Who in #$&$#%ck is rollo tomassi?

The guy who gets away with it.

 

[huskyharry]

Would be great if it was this upcoming year, when they are preseason #1.

It would hurt them as much or more if it were delayed until the following two seasons...serious negative impact on recruiting.

 

[huskyharry]

Are UNC and the NCAA really going to try and spin it that the men's basketball team didn't have much involvement with any wrongdoing? That there were sham classes and a lack of institutional control, but that mainly affected the football and women's basketball teams. Their highest profile and most celebrated team, though, they weren't part of it.

That's impossible to take seriously, but it's almost admirable, in a way, if that's what they try to sell to everyone.

For quite a long time, the athletic department and the UNC administration have been selling (and initially the NCAA was buying) that this is not an athletics issue since other students had the capability to take the same advantageous pseudo-coursework. From the e-mail strings, it is pretty clear that this was part of a deceptive plot from the beginning. I have no doubt that Good Ole Roy was knee deep in the initial planning process for this.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

For quite a long time, the athletic department and the UNC administration have been selling (and initially the NCAA was buying) that this is not an athletics issue since other students had the capability to take the same advantageous pseudo-coursework. From the e-mail strings, it is pretty clear that this was part of a deceptive plot from the beginning. I have no doubt that Good Ole Roy was knee deep in the initial planning process for this.

Tape of Coach William's interview with the NCAA investigators looking into these issues.

 

[Mano]

meanwhile, Roy gets a contract extension... cant make this stuff up

http://www.scout.com/college/north-...e&hootPostID=cc19fe89a1955c59dde5e82f8b022330

I've been trying to make sense of this since I read it yesterday and the best reasoning for it I can come up with is either:
A) They assume that they'll likely be facing a period of uncertainty for a number of years going forward and they don't want further upheaval by having to deal with everything that comes along with a new hire and search for one.
or
B) They are just flippantly thumbing their collective noses at the NCAA knowing not much will really be coming down on the Men's team, so it's essentially business as usual.

I'm hoping it's more the first than the second, but it's probably somewhere in between. Eh, who knows, I'm all schadenfreuded out.

 

[uconnbill]

My guess is the women's basketball takes the biggest hit and then men's basketball and football.

My guess the women lose 3 scholarships per year for the next three years and a two year ban for the next two years
The men lose two scholarships for the next two years and one year ban from the post season.
Football loses 5 scholarships the next two years and no post season ban.

I think they all should get more, but that will be it.

 

[David 76]

The truly remarkable thing in all of this: Just how bad would UNC football be without all that cheating?

 

[DarthGrumpy]

My guess is the women's basketball takes the biggest hit and then men's basketball and football.

My guess the women lose 3 scholarships per year for the next three years and a two year ban for the next two years
The men lose two scholarships for the next two years and one year ban from the post season.
Football loses 5 scholarships the next two years and no post season ban.

I think they all should get more, but that will be it.

I don't disagree with the concept; but, if the facts do not support such, UNC would likely be facing a federal inequality lawsuit and the impact of such on the university, ie loss of grant money, would be devastating.