"Hearing that the #UNC Notice of Allegations will be released Thursday morning" | Page 2 | The Boneyard

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
UConn990411 said:
Hopefully this will quiet the crowd that thinks UNC will only get a slap on the wrist.

The evidence is so bad - and so public - that the NCAA has no choice but to punish them. And contrary to Penn State, UNC won't have the threat of legal action up its sleeve.
Expand ...

The only reason PSU was overturned was because the NCAA wanted $60 million from PSU. It overreached and brought the case into the courts.
 
On the UNC Basketball board, they said a writer/media guy David Glenn has an inside source saying the basketball program will not be receiving any punishment. It's all football and women's basketball.

Take that with a grain of salt and whisper from Cheif though..
 
Jerry1714 said:
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.
Expand ...

no people complained about Cuse because the season was already over and they took advantage of knowing they wouldn't make the tournament. UNC could have an injury next year that prevents them from making a big splash in the tournament.
 
gwhuskyfan said:
Dennis Dodd ‏@dennisdoddcbs 4m4 minutes ago
Told that while language in UNC is using new penalty (more punitive) structure, UNC will be penalized with more lenient (old penalty struc)
Expand ...

Of course, because anyone with the most minuscule concept fairness and decency knows that it's wrong to apply punishments adopted after the crime in question was committed. It's just like when we had our APR problem and...oh wait, never mind.
 
.-.
As more people poor over and comment on this, the more I think MBB and Fball are going to skate on this....
 
Jerry1714 said:
What are you talking about?
Expand ...

Is it even worth asking? Everyone who makes no effort to learn anything about this is going to say that they won't be punished. It's easier to say that and complain than to put in the work required to be reasonably educated on it.
 
.-.
Letsgohuskies11 said:
no people complained about Cuse because the season was already over and they took advantage of knowing they wouldn't make the tournament. UNC could have an injury next year that prevents them from making a big splash in the tournament.
Expand ...
Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

They announced the post season ban on February 4th, how was the season over? They were 15-7 and 5-3 in the ACC.
 
Jerry1714 said:
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.
Expand ...
tin-foil-hat.jpg

Conspiracy Kitty says:
How long has the NCAA been paying you to carry their water on this board "Jerry?"
(I'll bet Jerry's not even his real name.)
 
Last edited:
tcf15 said:
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.
Expand ...

Level I violations are the most severe violations under the NCAA's penalty structure.

It appears that a number of UNC's athletic programs took advantage of the anomalous classes. Hopefully the NCAA doesn't try to make this exclusively a women's basketball and football case, as some have indicated. Seven members of UNC's 2005 men's basketball championship team majored in African-American studies. (Note: If that 2005 title gets vacated, UConn will have as many official men's basketball championships as North Carolina)

It's tough to say what will happen in any NCAA case given that they're an incompetent and inconsistent organization. That fact very well may be exacerbated by the fact that North Carolina is a Golden Goose of the NCAA. Many may try to argue that "everyone does it," but UNC violated the ultimate rule of cheating: don't get caught. I don't see any way the NCAA can get out of punishing North Carolina severely.
 
Jimdish255 said:
Will the penalty be based upon the structure that was current at the time of the violations or will it be un-retroactively lessened or exactly the opposite of our APR sanctions.
Expand ...
The NCAA COI has a choice on which penalty structure to use because the infractions occurred in old structure. Surprise, surprise the COI chose the older more lenient penalty structure because f@$& UConn

What I've read so far, I concur with @Santini35 that WBB will feel the most paint, however MBB and Football will not get off completely, but you know fack UConn
 
.-.
Embroiled in lawsuits from players they don't want to consider employees, the NCAA has to make absolutely clear here that they do not tolerate schools providing a substandard education to its student-athletes for the purpose of keeping them eligible for athletics. That eviscerates the contention that the NCAA's members schools are giving fair value to student-athletes by providing them with scholarships. If they don't hammer UNC for this, it will be used to show that the NCAA tolerates not educating athletes, which basically guarantees a judgment against them.
 
It's absolutely impossible to guess on sanctions with any degree of certainty here.

You could guess what would happen to Syracuse because even though the scope of their malfeasance was fairly impressive, it was stuff that had precedent.

This seems different - the charges are very, very broad. They will be decided under the old structure of penalties because that's where the violations occurred.

The notice of allegations seems to swerve around men's basketball to a large degree - I wonder if the McCants' lawsuit made the NCAA gun shy about putting any evidence in print. That would be incredibly ironic.

My wild, wild guess is that UNC suffers here - women's hoop and football will be really smacked. Show causes will be issued. Men's hoop will keep the 2005 title, Roy will not be suspended - they may lose some scholarships, but they largely escape. The curiosity is what happens to the athletic department itself - the lack of institutional control here was epic.

I have no idea why people here keep referencing UConn in the context of any penalties UNC will suffer - just stop. You look stupid.
 
Fishy said:
I have no idea why people here keep referencing UConn in the context of any penalties UNC will suffer - just stop. You look stupid.
Expand ...

Because everyone knows that there's nothing funnier than making the same jokes that have been made dozens of dozens of times before, and didn't really make sense in the first place.
 
Fishy said:
I have no idea why people here keep referencing UConn in the context of any penalties UNC will suffer - just stop. You look stupid.
Expand ...

Thank you, Thank you, and thank you. They think they are funny but they are just idiots.
 
NCAA to #UNC in its NOA: "the institution demonstrated a lack of institutional control by providing impermissible academic extra benefits... in an effort to compete with a UConn team that continually excelled despite recruiting fewer than the required BLUEBLOOD level of one-and-done 4 star high school players each and every season. As a result of this unfair on-the-court excellence, the NCAA finds that UConn tricked UNC into these violations in a completely reasonable effort by UNC to maintain a respectable BLUEBLOOD level of advantage over the rest of college men's basketball. Thus, the NCAA has no choice but to punish UConn for forcing UNC into these violations." Or words to this effect.
 
.-.
Mazhude said:
NCAA to #UNC in its NOA: "the institution demonstrated a lack of institutional control by providing impermissible academic extra benefits... in an effort to compete with a UConn team that continually excelled despite recruiting fewer than the required BLUEBLOOD level of one-and-done 4 star high school players each and every season. As a result of this unfair on-the-court excellence, the NCAA finds that UConn tricked UNC into these violations in a completely reasonable effort by UNC to maintain a respectable BLUEBLOOD level of advantage over the rest of college men's basketball. Thus, the NCAA has no choice but to punish UConn for forcing UNC into these violations." Or words to this effect.
Expand ...

How long did you spend putting this together?
 
Mazhude said:
NCAA to #UNC in its NOA: "the institution demonstrated a lack of institutional control by providing impermissible academic extra benefits... in an effort to compete with a UConn team that continually excelled despite recruiting fewer than the required BLUEBLOOD level of one-and-done 4 star high school players each and every season. As a result of this unfair on-the-court excellence, the NCAA finds that UConn tricked UNC into these violations in a completely reasonable effort by UNC to maintain a respectable BLUEBLOOD level of advantage over the rest of college men's basketball. Thus, the NCAA has no choice but to punish UConn for forcing UNC into these violations." Or words to this effect.
Expand ...
Did you actually think this was clever when you wrote it?
 
Jerry1714 said:
Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

They announced the post season ban on February 4th, how was the season over? They were 15-7 and 5-3 in the ACC.
Expand ...

They weren't making the tournament regardless of the sanctions.
 
Fishy said:
They will be decided under the old structure of penalties because that's where the violations occurred.
Expand ...

If there's any part of this that remotely compares with UConn's ordeal, wouldn't this be it? Didn't UConn's APR transgressions occur "under the old structure of penalties" - which did not include a postseason ban?
 
HuskyBballFan said:
If there's any part of this that remotely compares with UConn's ordeal, wouldn't this be it? Didn't UConn's APR transgressions occur "under the old structure of penalties" - which did not include a postseason ban?
Expand ...

If we ever get to the point where it's clear that UConn isn't getting into a major conference, I hope they use this fact to sue the NCAA. I'm no big city lawyer, and I don't have any idea if it would go anywhere, but it's pretty hard to defend UConn getting a season's suspension for the APR violation while Syracuse and UNC are getting punished under a since-replaced system.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,202
Messages
4,556,742
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom