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

[Fishy]

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.

 

[CallMeBruce]

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

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.

 

[Jerry1714]

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

Thank you, Thank you, and thank you. They think they are funny but they are just idiots.

 

[Mazhude]

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.

 

[CallMeBruce]

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.

How long did you spend putting this together?

 

[Mazhude]

How long did you spend putting this together?

About as long as it took to type it...

 

[Jerry1714]

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.

Did you actually think this was clever when you wrote it?

 

[Letsgohuskies11]

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.

They weren't making the tournament regardless of the sanctions.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

They will be decided under the old structure of penalties because that's where the violations occurred.

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?

 

[CallMeBruce]

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?

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.

 

[Tenspro2002]

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

The situations are different, but it's the question over whether to punish a school based on the penalty regime in place when the infraction occurred or based on the penalty in place after the infraction occurred.

The implication here is that UNC is punished using the old penalty system because their violations occurred during the old penalty regime (which is reasonable), while we were punished using a new penalty system, despite the fact that our APR violations -- if you want to call them that -- occurred when an older penalty system was in place (which is ex post facto nonsense).

It's not an unreasonable complaint on our end, though I suppose the UNC situation doesn't have much to do with it.

 

[Mazhude]

Did you actually think this was clever when you wrote it?

Jerry, thank you for your angst. And yes, it is at least as clever as anything you've posted in recent memory. Have you had a positive thing to say about anyone's posts here, I wonder? Mostly you just seem to snipe at things other people say...

 

[CallMeBruce]

The situations are different, but it's the question over whether to punish a school based on the penalty regime in place when the infraction occurred or based on the penalty in place after the infraction occurred.

The implication here is that UNC is punished using the old penalty system because their violations occurred during the old penalty regime (which is reasonable), while we were punished using a new penalty system, despite the fact that our APR violations -- if you want to call them that -- occurred when an older penalty system was in place (which is ex post facto nonsense).

It's not an unreasonable complaint on our end, though I suppose the UNC situation doesn't have much to do with it.

Right, but the 'joke' that has been repeated ad nauseum on here is that UConn is going to be punished for UNC's violations, just as it was made when Syracuse was waiting on their penalty. Independent of that, it's a stupid, unfunny joke, and it's been made on here probably 150 times.

 

[UConn Dan]

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

This is epic level dooshbaggery. UConn fans still have a ton of resentment for the APR situation. Let us vent how we want without your holier than thou comments.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Jerry, thank you for your angst. And yes, it is at least as clever as anything you've posted in recent memory. Have you had a positive thing to say about anyone's posts here, I wonder? Mostly you just seem to snipe at things other people say...

Stop posting stupid crap and people will stop criticizing you. It's tiresome.

 

[Jaker]

UNC won't get the death penalty,but I do see a 2 year post season ban in their future.

 

[Jerry1714]

Jerry, thank you for your angst. And yes, it is at least as clever as anything you've posted in recent memory. Have you had a positive thing to say about anyone's posts here, I wonder? Mostly you just seem to snipe at things other people say...

Sorry to hurt your feelings, next time just be original.

P.S. my previous post was very postive, I thanked Fishy for calling out posters like you. I even included 3 "thank yous" that is very complimentary.

 

[JSM1970]

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

UNC won't get the death penalty,but I do see a 2 year post season ban in their future.

 

[Brochacho]

The Boneyard has gotten bitchy lately. I think we all need more time outside to play.

 

[Fishy]

This is epic level dooshbaggery. UConn fans still have a ton of resentment for the APR situation. Let us vent how we want without your holier than thou comments.

Looking stupid is something of a cottage industry for you, so consider yourself exempt.

 

[CL82]

If new structure were used:

They have developed an interesting two tier system.

Tier 1 (for use with land grant institutions located in Connecticut):
Sanction, then create absurdly more severe retroactive penalty making sure that it is mathematically impossible subject institution to comply and then re-sanction for same offense.

Tier 2 (for use with everyone else):
Evade and ignore violations if possible, if media can't be distracted, then use tough language and sanction minimally.

 

[CL82]

Right, but the 'joke' that has been repeated ad nauseum on here is that UConn is going to be punished for UNC's violations, just as it was made when Syracuse was waiting on their penalty. Independent of that, it's a stupid, unfunny joke, and it's been made on here probably 150 times.

...and probably will be again...in twenty minutes.

 

[UConn Dan]

Looking stupid is something of a cottage industry for you, so consider yourself exempt.

I agree with @Brochacho . Maybe, you should go outside and play hide and go funk yourself.

I kid, I kid, Fishy. I like you most of the time, but "the better than you" attitude comes on a bit thick sometimes.

 

[Excalibur]

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.

1) You assume, with no evidence, that it is the same people that want UNC banned this year that objected to cuse's current-season ban.

2) The problem with the Cuse penalties, and the problem if UNC gets only a one year, current-season ban, is that, when taken in context with the recruiting-destructive and transfer-inducing ban for failure to meet APR standards, the message is clear that cheating is worth the risk.

 

[UConnSwag11]