NCAA announcing UNC penalties on Friday | Page 3 | The Boneyard

NCAA announcing UNC penalties on Friday

I wouldn't expect much. Any significant penalties, and this will end up in Court. The NCAA would probably lose in Court because it is seriously bending its rule book to assert jurisdiction. UNC is going to skate.
 
dogged1 said:
Did UNC just dictate to the NCAA when an infractions report would be released? Which is the dog and which is the tail?
Expand ...
THAT is amazing...but then again...with the NCAA's past decisions, I guess it's not! Remember when they tried to let them off the hook with this the first time!? Most interesting statement in there is that the Vice Chancellor said they anticipated (i.e.-demanded) 24 hour notice. But if I'm looking correctly at the clock right now, that 24 hr buffer would still exist with an afternoon announcement tomorrow...lol So could the situation be that UNC wants an opportunity to review (and possibly counter?) the NCAA's sanctions? That would account for why the release still won't be coming on Monday, but rather as he said, it will come at a later date. Wow...just wow! If the NCAA bends on these sanctions, they're just digging their own grave! :rolleyes:
 
.-.
As far as I'm aware UNC is expected to announce the largest capital campaign in school history tomorrow & that's most likely the conflict they have & would rather not have this story dominate the headlines regardless of the outcome
 
huskymedic said:


Andrew Carter‏ @_andrewcarter 8m 8 minutes ago
UNC is announcing a $4.3 billion fundraiser tomorrow. There are events all around campus the entire weekend, many important people in town.
Expand ...


Interesting detail from that article:

The standard length of time for the committee to release its findings is between eight to 12 weeks; UNC appeared before the committee about seven weeks ago.
Expand ...

I have absolutely no idea if that's a good or bad development for UNC.
 
crewbear742 said:
I wouldn't expect much. Any significant penalties, and this will end up in Court. The NCAA would probably lose in Court because it is seriously bending its rule book to assert jurisdiction. UNC is going to skate.
Expand ...
What do mean bending it's rule book to assert jurisdiction? Ever hear of the APR?

Anywho...

NCAA: We will announce UNC penalties on Friday.

UNC: Mmm, I don't think you will.

NCAA: Oh okay... sorry.
 
Last edited:
.-.
CL82 said:
What do mean bending it's rule book to assert jurisdiction? Ever hear of the APR?
Expand ...

I mean the NCAA by design has no standing to regulate Academics. That is what the NCAA is trying to do. That is why UNC has been fighting so hard. It has a very strong legal case that the NCAA has exceeded its authority.
 
CL82 said:
What do mean bending it's rule book to assert jurisdiction? Ever hear of the APR?

Anywho...

NCAA: We will announce UNC penalties on Friday.

UNC: Mmm, I don't think you will.

NCAA: Oh okay... sorry.
Expand ...

This deserves more likes.

Because this is exactly what happened.
 
crewbear742 said:
I mean the NCAA by design has no standing to regulate Academics. That is what the NCAA is trying to do. That is why UNC has been fighting so hard. It has a very strong legal case that the NCAA has exceeded its authority.
Expand ...
Not so much actually. The NCAA has the ability to regulate eligibility for student athletes. One of the criteria they use to determine eligibility is APR. UNC entered into a two decade scheme to supplied false information to the NCAA. They played ineligible athletes. The penalty for playing an ineligible athlete is forfeiture of the the game. The NCAA is well within it's ability to have UNC forfeit every game for the last 20 years.

UNC has a duty monitor its sport programs. It did not, and frankly that's being gracious. Failure to monitor for 20 years? The NCAA could levy a post season ban. Again well within it's wheelhouse.

Now a separate point is that university's providing no show classes are grounds for them to lose accreditation. The NCAA doesn't decide that issue. Another point is that the university breached it's contract with students, in that it provided no show classes to some students devaluing it's degree. The NCAA doesn't decide that issue either. But just because some parts of UNC's fraud is beyond the reach of the NCAA does not mean that all of it is.
 

>>“Is this really an athletics issue, or is it more broadly an accreditation issue, that’s the question,’’ said Atlanta-based attorney Stu Brown, who specializes in NCAA infractions cases. “The arguments that Carolina has laid out procedurally about why this really is an accreditation issue and would be a slippery slope for the NCAA to get into regarding the academic integrity are valid. But the people on the Committee on Infractions also don’t live in a bubble. They’re not immune to public perception and there is a perception that if the NCAA doesn’t crack down, what good are they?’’<<
 
Last edited:
.-.
CL82 said:
Not so much actually.
Expand ...

The Athletic Dept is under no obligation to vet the quality of classes offered by the University. These classes were not created for the sole exclusive purpose of maintaining the eligibility of athletes. They were available to the general student body. The fact that advisers directed athletes towards these classes proves nothing more than the advisers were acting as academic advisers. These are accreditation issues, and the NCAA does not have the standing to judge them. University presidents didn't want the NCAA mucking around in their sandbox. This is the basic case that UNC will trot into Federal Court, and it agrees very well with the NCAA rule book. If there is any financial bite to these sanctions, the lawyers are going to get involved quickly.
 
crewbear742 said:
The Athletic Dept is under no obligation to vet the quality of classes offered by the University. These classes were not created for the sole exclusive purpose of maintaining the eligibility of athletes. They were available to the general student body. The fact that advisers directed athletes towards these classes proves nothing more than the advisers were acting as academic advisers. These are accreditation issues, and the NCAA does not have the standing to judge them. University presidents didn't want the NCAA mucking around in their sandbox. This is the basic case that UNC will trot into Federal Court, and it agrees very well with the NCAA rule book. If there is any financial bite to these sanctions, the lawyers are going to get involved quickly.
Expand ...
Lol, good luck with the argument that AD does not have to submit accurate grade info because that's the university's job and they not regulated by the NCAA. Those are the kind of pleadings that make judges angry.

Just an FYI, the university is a member institution of the NCAA, not just the athletic dept.
 
Last edited:
CL82 said:
Lol, good luck with the argument thst AD does have to submit accurate grade info because thats the university's job and they regulated by the NCAA. Those are the kind of pleadings that make judges angry.

Just an FYI, the university is a member institution of the NCAA, not just the athletic dept.
Expand ...

Unless the judge is corrupt/incompetent/a lackey. Like Emmert.
 
I don’t know how one can make the argument that the NCAA can’t manage academic eligibility when you granted them the power of the ban hammer wih APR scores.

That’s so counterintuitive I don’t even know how to respond to anyone making it without going Homer Simpson on them. Lol
 
.-.
nomar said:
And if I were the NCAA, I'd say you can't cheat for 20 years by shuffling athletes through bogus classes to keep them eligible and get away with it.
Expand ...

But that's the whole point. The NCAA doesn't have standing to make a judgment about bogus classes. It wants that standing. It wants it really bad. But by statute it doesn't have it.

And that's why I said this going to Court if there are any serious financial repercussions..
 
Funny how the timing works. UNC gets it's case closed just before the death penalty and ACC expulsion chatter gets going. It's been so long, I don't even remember if UNC self sanctioned at the beginning. The only thing that would surprise me is if the penalty was actually harsh, meaning more than a 1 yr tourny ban (including any previous self bans should they have occurred.)
 
crewbear742 said:
But that's the whole point. The NCAA doesn't have standing to make a judgment about bogus classes. It wants that standing. It wants it really bad. But by statute it doesn't have it.

And that's why I said this going to Court if there are any serious financial repercussions..
Expand ...

Which statutory provision prohibits them from sanctioning UNC in this case? And why doesn't that putative statute apply to low APR scores?

Seems like you're stating an opinion, just like you're accusing CL82 of doing.
 
CL82 said:
I'm guessing that they'll get a one year post season ban and some recruiting restrictions for their two decade long academic fraud.

Oh and those sanctions will be to woman's basketball with a warning to football and nothing to men's basketball.

I'm not kidding.
Expand ...

I agree. It's going to be an indefensible WTH moment then crickets after a few days. Who exactly do they have to defend the decision in front of? Elected officials, a judge, ESPN!?! Nope. Just the Universities who stand to benefit from the money train staying on the tracks. There is no independent arbiter here that doesn't have a stake in the protecting the financial interests of P5 members.

And the timing of this is very interesting.
 
crewbear742 said:
But that's the whole point. The NCAA doesn't have standing to make a judgment about bogus classes. It wants that standing. It wants it really bad. But by statute it doesn't have it.

And that's why I said this going to Court if there are any serious financial repercussions..
Expand ...

That's the point Dana O'Neil makes above in the article Bilas retweeted (post #78):

>>The NCAA has, throughout its history, often steered away from academic issues, positioning itself as the governing body of athletics and insisting that accrediting agencies and the like are in charge of curriculum and coursework. Its phonebook-thick rulebook includes plenty of rules on initial eligibility requirements and maintaining good academic standing but it says nothing about determining what counts as a proper college course and what doesn’t. “It’s ultimately up to universities to determine whether or not the courses for which they’re giving credit, the degrees for which they’re passing out diplomas, live up to the academic standards of higher education,’’ NCAA president Mark Emmert said in 2015.<<

>>Case precedent follows Emmert’s thinking. Ten years ago a Michigan professor taught nearly 300 independent study classes over a three-year period, athletes making up 85 percent of the class rosters. An Auburn professor taught more than 200 independent study courses in one year that required virtually no work and included 18 football players on the Tigers’ 2004 football roster. The NCAA did not charge either school with anything relating to the academic courses, decisions North Carolina cited in its argument.

This North Carolina case, then, could be a direct pivot on the NCAA’s positioning, one with far-reaching ramifications.<<
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,289
Messages
4,561,574
Members
10,455
Latest member
UConnGabby


Top Bottom