NCAA announcing UNC penalties on Friday | Page 4 | The Boneyard

NCAA announcing UNC penalties on Friday

If the penalty is shockingly fair & heavy, won't UNC just drag out an appeals process? Always wondered why UConn accepted their double retroactive fate without a whimper.
 
Already been leaked:
1) 2 extra scholarships per year for three years
2) Coach Williams to be awarded the Medal of Freedom
3) Call-Girl per diem account reduced be 5% per annum......for 1 annum....retroactive to 1936
4) Michael Jordan's " the floor is the ceiling" to replace the Gettysburg Address in all UNC History Courses
5) UNC allowed to forgo History Courses
6) Rick The Quick Pitino to be named new Compliance Director
 
the Q said:
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
Expand ...

I think the point is they can manage academic eligibility to a point, but they can't be deciding if UNC's academic departments are properly accredited. There are accreditation agencies to do that. The NCAA can only decide if the athletic department was instigating cheating. At least that is the main point of contention I think. UNC's scandal is worse in many ways because it seems to have started with a rogue academic department. But that might be what keeps it outside the purview of the NCAA.
 
I expect the announcement will be made by none other than Ms. Emily Litella...

upload_2017-10-5_22-40-46.jpeg
 
crewbear742 said:
Well, maybe you will believe the NY times.
North Carolina Looking to Slip Through Hole in N.C.A.A. Rules
Expand ...
The academic dishonesty is an unprecedented black mark on North Carolina. The university’s accreditation body briefly took the extraordinary step of placing the institution on probation, and its teams could still face sanctions like lost scholarships, vacated titles and postseason bans.

Lol, wow the alumni must be so very proud.

The analysis I posted above remains unchanged. The article is flawed when it refers to the no show classes as "easy classes." Easy classes are a choice by the university to devalue every grad's degree. No show "classes" are academic fraud. Do you understand the difference? But more importantly the academic fraud was used to subvert the rules for NCAA members. UNC can, I suppose ignore the NCAA's edicts, but the NCAA can bar them from participation in NCAA events. A court isn't going overturn that.
 
Last edited:
.-.
Remember everyone, Matt Norlander et. al. in the CBB media said it is UNFAIR to go after the NCAA as being light on UNC until they release the punishment!

(He said this 2 years ago)
 
zls44 said:
Remember everyone, Matt Norlander et. al. in the CBB media said it is UNFAIR to go after the NCAA as being light on UNC until they release the punishment!
(He said this 2 years ago)
Expand ...

That last bit is amazing. It kinda slips by the wayside just how long it's been.
 
CL82 said:
The academic dishonesty is an unprecedented black mark on North Carolina. The university’s accreditation body briefly took the extraordinary step of placing the institution on probation, and its teams could still face sanctions like lost scholarships, vacated titles and postseason bans.

Lol, wow the alumni must be so very proud.

The analysis I posted above remains unchanged. The article is flawed when it refers to the no show classes as "easy classes." Easy classes are a choice by the university to devalue every grad's degree. No show "classes" are academic fraud. Do you understand the difference? But more importantly the academic fraud was used to subvert the rules for NCAA members. UNC can, I suppose ignore the NCAA's edicts, but the NCAA can bar them from participation in NCAA events. A court isn't going overturn that.
Expand ...
Then the NCAA should charge UNC with academic fraud instead of extra benefits. In their last response they acknowledged the fact they don't have power over what constitutes proper course credit. So now you could open up all kinds of potential extra benefits cases based on the benefits each college athlete receive that the general student body doesn't on every campus in the NCAA. Athlete's get soecial treatment in class registration,their advisors can set them up with tudors etc& that us not available to each student. That means Stanford for example could receive some type of sanctions related to courses their athletic department runs only for student athletes including receiving credit for practice
 
.-.
GemParty said:
If the penalty is shockingly fair & heavy, won't UNC just drag out an appeals process? Always wondered why UConn accepted their double retroactive fate without a whimper.
Expand ...

Cause Hathaway, being the selfish scumbag he was, happily threw Calhoun under the bus, and washed his hands of any wrongdoing. As long as HE got off scot free, who cares about UConn?!

I don't know what kind of AD throws his star coach, a man who built the athletic program on his back, under the bus, but... that's who he was.
 
Any APR scores UNC ever reported during this charade were fraudulent. The NCAA can basically claim that since the APR would be drastically lower if all fraudulent work were counted as a zero, there is grounds for punishment. Even though you can't determine what grades the athletes would have earned in legitimate classes, you can claim that the reports were fraudulent and therefore without any value whatsoever. UNC had a ZERO APR if one athlete involved in determining said APR was taking fake classes.
 
ramses 2.0 said:
Then the NCAA should charge UNC with academic fraud instead of extra benefits. In their last response they acknowledged the fact they don't have power over what constitutes proper course credit. So now you could open up all kinds of potential extra benefits cases based on the benefits each college athlete receive that the general student body doesn't on every campus in the NCAA. Athlete's get soecial treatment in class registration,their advisors can set them up with tudors etc& that us not available to each student. That means Stanford for example could receive some type of sanctions related to courses their athletic department runs only for student athletes including receiving credit for practice
Expand ...

If they can't regulate something like this in some fashion, then there's little reason for any athletes to go to classes whatsoever. As long as the university itself sweeps the practice under the rug.
 
.-.
huskymedic said:
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.<<
Expand ...
It seems the NCAA already intruded on academic standards when they issued the APR. And they employed it retroactively. Interestingly they set the standard at a 2.5 GPA minimum for student athletes when many universities have lower standards for the general student body. Although it's apples and oranges, it would seem that the NCAA university members gave their approval for the governing body to define standards. If UNC can prove in court that the NCAA does not have that right, than it seems UConn and the other universities punished by the APR might be able to sue the NCAA for damages. I wonder if it would also end up causing trouble for the accrediting bodies.
 
Hoophound said:
Any APR scores UNC ever reported during this charade were fraudulent. The NCAA can basically claim that since the APR would be drastically lower if all fraudulent work were counted as a zero, there is grounds for punishment. Even though you can't determine what grades the athletes would have earned in legitimate classes, you can claim that the reports were fraudulent and therefore without any value whatsoever. UNC had a ZERO APR if one athlete involved in determining said APR was taking fake classes.
Expand ...

I'd be shocked (and pleasantly surprised) if they do. During UNC's probationary status back in 2014, everyone that attended the fake classes were allowed to keep their degrees. The NCAA isn't in a position to say who graduated and who didn't and the fact that they were only on probationary status by the SACS will probably foreshadow what's going to happen to UNC - next to nothing.

If UNC did lose it's accreditation because of this, the NCAA would be within it's rights to come down with the hammer and that's not going to happen. Losing their accreditation would make them ineligible to receive federal funding which will affect everyone.
 
intlzncster said:
If they can't regulate something like this in some fashion, then there's little reason for any athletes to go to classes whatsoever. As long as the university itself sweeps the practice under the rug.
Expand ...
Whether you classify these courses as fraudulent or irregular, the bottom line each person that took them received credit for it. No course that I'm aware of was disqualified either by the university of it's accrediting agency. That's why the NCAA took the impermissible benefit route but even that doesn't hold up
 
I think some of these things might actually hold up in court due to the language likely found in the rule book and membership documents. Lines that state that ethical behavior, high standards, fair play, spirit of competition etc. are expected of each member should be in play. Basically, find anything that states being a scumbag for an advantage on the field is against the rules.

Everyone knows this was morally bankrupt. Using a legal technicality might work, but pointing to the well communicated standards of behavior likely required by members of the NCAA is within reason. When you have a contract with someone whether you deal in medicine, law, real estate, construction, accounting etc., you are supposed to use skill, care and diligence when providing a service. When a member of the NCAA shows anything but adherence to the spirit of the rules, there is reason to take a hard look and see if they willfully did something outside the implied standards set forth by being a member. Did UNC use skill care and diligence in this scandal? They did, except they used it to cheat.
 
The problem is that these courses are technically not fake courses. They were in the catalog. Any student could register. They had a syllabus. They had course work assigned. They were graded according to the required course work. They are on the transcript. There is no technical occurrence of fraud. The classes were real. The work was performed by the student himself.

Now people look at this ethically and they say "[Expletive Deleted!]" And they are correct. But it doesn't matter in terms of the NCAA rules. The NCAA will not examine the course content and say "That is a fraudulent course." University presidents did not want the NCAA to have the authority to criticize their academic courses. That is the purview of the University itself. So the NCAA does not have jurisdiction to punish what actually happened at UNC.

That's why this case has gone on for six years. The NCAA has been trying to find grounds for jurisdiction. What it settled upon is weak. I don't think it survives a Court challenge because a Court will make sure that the NCAA followed its rules.

This is not going to end easily or quickly. And frankly UNC - despite its fraudulent activity - is in the right and should prevail. Note that I have no connection to UNC.
 
Last edited:
gtcam said:
Yeah - The NY Times
Never twists the news, never shows bias
Yeah The NY Slimes
Expand ...

I grew up in the post Vietnam War military. I got my Commission in 1981. I have a brother who is a combat Veteran of Vietnam. People from my demographic are not fond of Journalists. To this day, when I see the word "Journalist" I reflexively substitute the phrase "Viet Cong".

And yet even I will admit that beneath all its biases and Liberal presuppositions, the New York Times is an exceptionally high quality Newspaper.
 
.-.
crewbear742 said:
I grew up in the post Vietnam War military. I got my Commission in 1981. I have a brother who is a combat Veteran of Vietnam. People from my demographic are not fond of Journalists. To this day, when I see the word "Journalist" I reflexively substitute the phrase "Viet Cong".

And yet even I will admit that beneath all its biases and Liberal presuppositions, the New York Times is an exceptionally high quality Newspaper.
Expand ...

Thanks for your and your brothers service.
I have 2 cousins who are Vietnam Vets
But, to me, the NYT is nothing but a rag - but it does have a great crossword puzzle
 
crewbear742 said:
I grew up in the post Vietnam War military. I got my Commission in 1981. I have a brother who is a combat Veteran of Vietnam. People from my demographic are not fond of Journalists. To this day, when I see the word "Journalist" I reflexively substitute the phrase "Viet Cong".

And yet even I will admit that beneath all its biases and Liberal presuppositions, the New York Times is an exceptionally high quality Newspaper.
Expand ...

The New York Times is a terrific newspaper - one of the best. You should read the New York Times. Or at least parts of it...

Unfortunately, the slight bias that used to be a given for most newspaper political coverage is now out of control at the Times.
 
The classes are considered a benefit to the athletes by the NCAA because they were an automatic to get into the classes if they wished, the regular student body was not. Normal students had to be let in by an academic advisor and were the minority in the class. Papers were done for athletes, an email stated athletes need only perform at middle school level. UNC claims that this is acceptable, the NCAA says that these are all impermissible benefits, which they were because they only applied to athletes. It’s all how you want to look at it. UNC violated any reasonable code of ethical conduct required by the NCAA.
 
Hoophound said:
The classes are considered a benefit to the athletes by the NCAA because they were an automatic to get into the classes if they wished, the regular student body was not. Normal students had to be let in by an academic advisor and were the minority in the class. Papers were done for athletes, an email stated athletes need only perform at middle school level. UNC claims that this is acceptable, the NCAA says that these are all impermissible benefits, which they were because they only applied to athletes. It’s all how you want to look at it. UNC violated any reasonable code of ethical conduct required by the NCAA.
Expand ...
If it is true that:
General student body needed approval from an official for admission while atheletes did not, then there is NCAA territory. I will bet that everyone needed department chair permission, probably one from both the student's chair and the program chair. Everyone jumps through the same hoops, just some had an easier road to the hoop. (They need to find the pre-signed forms by the AD admitting the students.)
Academic achievement is judged by accreditation, and program decertification doesn't appear to rise to ethics violation. There will need to be a clear paper trail showing that departments, academic and athletic, colluded to this alleged activity if the NCAA wants to enter that charge. (Find those forms)
I suspect UNC knows how to skirt the cutting edge of the rules, and they get away with it. It's very easy to follow the rules when you write the rules, and class registration is nothing but rules controlled by the institution. They may not have a hockey team, but they know how to skate.
 
crewbear742 said:
The problem is that these courses are technically not fake courses. They were in the catalog. Any student could register. They had a syllabus. They had course work assigned. They were graded according to the required course work. They are on the transcript. There is no technical occurrence of fraud. The classes were real. The work was performed by the student himself.

Now people look at this ethically and they say "[Expletive Deleted!]" And they are correct. But it doesn't matter in terms of the NCAA rules. The NCAA will not examine the course content and say "That is a fraudulent course." University presidents did not want the NCAA to have the authority to criticize their academic courses. That is the purview of the University itself. So the NCAA does not have jurisdiction to punish what actually happened at UNC.

That's why this case has gone on for six years. The NCAA has been trying to find grounds for jurisdiction. What it settled upon is weak. I don't think it survives a Court challenge because a Court will make sure that the NCAA followed its rules.

This is not going to end easily or quickly. And frankly UNC - despite its fraudulent activity - is in the right and should prevail. Note that I have no connection to UNC.
Expand ...
UNC has already lost. Its once sterling reputation is gone. "Doing things the Carolina way" has gone from a tagline to a punch line. And every single day they keep challenging this their reputation as cheaters becomes more ingrained in the public. That's one of the major things you seem to be missing with the tortured pedantic arguments.

The other is for UNC to prevail the NCAA has to lose any ability to enforce that student athletes actually be students. Particularly in the current climate, that's a death knell for them. They are a multimillion dollar enterprise that won't go quietly into that good night.
 
CL82 said:
UNC has already lost. Its once sterling reputation is gone. "Doing things the Carolina way" has gone from a tagline to a punch line. And every single day they keep challenging this their reputation as cheaters becomes more ingrained in the public. That's one of the major things you seem to be missing with the tortured pedantic arguments.

The other is for UNC to prevail the NCAA has to lose any ability to enforce that student athletes actually be students. Particularly in the current climate, that's a death knell for them. They are a multimillion dollar enterprise that won't go quietly into that good night.
Expand ...

Idk CL. Nobody even seems to care. They won a title and it barely was mentioned. They've gotten away with it in the minds of casual fans up til this point. I'm not making a dumb comparative joke here, but if it was a school like UCONN, this would be screamed from the high heavens at every opportunity.
 
.-.
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