NCAA: Committee on Infractions could not conclude UNC violated NCAA rules

[crewbear742]

Again no, as I've stated above it most certainly is an organization's "business" when a member submits fraudulent information to gain an unfair advantage against other members. As I've posted above, it was well within there ability to sanction and no court is going overturn an organization's rules internal rules and regulations based upon the argument that UNC's cheating should be allowed since the fraud was done by the academic side of the university. It's a nonsense argument.

To declare the classes fradulent, the NCAA would have had to find the the course content fradulent. There was nothing else fradulent about them. To declare the course content fradulent, the NCAA would have had to exert jurisdiction over course content. This the NCAA will not do. That's why the NCAA refused to press the case on the basis of academic fraud. University professors are jealous of their exclusive right to judge academic content. Without any basis to charge academic fraud, the NCAA had no remaining viable grounds for punishment. That is all this case amounts to. So the NCAA dropped it rather than have its head removed by the Court.

If you think I am wrong, then explain the conclusion of the case without appealing to a dark conspiracy. A conspiracy charge is made by those who refuse to accept the outcome but have no contrary evidence. It's a convenient vehicle to reach a pre-determined conclusion. Instead explain how the NCAA could have charged the case without judging course content given the fact that the courses were technically legitimate in every other way. The NCAA couldn't answer this question. Perhaps you are able to do so - without making irrelevant appeals to APR.

There is no conspiracy here. FOIA won't produce any evidence of conspiracy. If the NCAA had wanted to bury this case quietly, it had ample opportunity over the last six years. Could you in fact have planned a worse public presentation for a conspiracy than what happened? If UNC had the power to kill its punishment at this late date, don't you think it would have exercised that power a little sooner? Don't you think the NCAA would have been a little more clever? It didn't have to wait until the very last moment to back off, thus making itself look as bad as possible. You don't hide a body by carrying it into the middle of Yankee Stadium and digging up the pitcher's mound during a game.

There is nothing more to this than UNC slithering through a crack in the rules.

 

[CL82]

You're making it more complicated than it is. The courses stand no matter how they are classified. Neither the University or SACS disqualified them so the NCAA didn't have a leg to stand on

Not really. The posts above walked you through it. There still there if you'd like to take another look.

 

[CL82]

If you think I am wrong, then explain the conclusion of the case without appealing to a dark conspiracy.

There was no "case" at least in the legal sense.

Here's the question to ask yourself. If your analysis is correct, why didn't NCAA make it instead of making a tortured impermissible benefit argument.

 

[CL82]

The NCAA can’t do that without going down a rabbit hole it both doesn’t want to go down nor should it. I think UNC deserves a penalty. I have zero sympathy for it. But they are absolutely correct in arguing that course content and grading and related matters are outside its purview. It is maddening but it is correct none the less. Once you open that door there is no stopping. I was talking with a guy this weekend who is a sports fan and a faculty member at a NESCAC school. His view was that the NCAA was right to back off for exactly that reason. You simply cannot have them evaluating course content. There are other entities both more appropriate and better equip to do that. And those bodies should do it.

I agree with this Scooter. That's why the easy answer is to ask UNC if a no show, one paper course, that was graded without being read by administrative rather that academic, staff is consistent with school policy. If they yes, they get off from NCAA sanction but have an accreditation issue. If they say no they, are okay for accreditation but then the course is compliant with school policy and thus not shouldn't be counted for APR progress.

 

[selles]

To declare the classes fradulent, the NCAA would have had to find the the course content fradulent. There was nothing else fradulent about them.

Nothing else fraudulent other than the fact they were designated as lecture courses but never actually held lectures? Oh, and that they were graded by a secretary?

Otherwise they were all good.

 

[Leebo]

I've also heard a few times that the "general population" students that got into the classes did have to do more work than the athletes, while still being a sorry excuse for college level work. So there was an imbalance in how they were treated, even if regular students snuck in as well.

 

[ramses 2.0]

I agree with this Scooter. That's why the easy answer is to ask UNC if a no show, one paper course, that was graded without being read by administrative rather that academic, staff is consistent with school policy. If they yes, they get off from NCAA sanction but have an accreditation issue. If they say no they, are okay for accreditation but then the course is compliant with school policy and thus not shouldn't be counted for APR progress.

Maybe you should read the infractions report. To summarize, UNC stood by the courses even though it could have put their accreditation at risk. So the answer to your question is yes no show,poorly graded test etc were not against school policy until 2011

 

[dogged1]

Maybe you should read the infractions report. To summarize, UNC stood by the courses even though it could have put their accreditation at risk. So the answer to your question is yes no show,poorly graded test etc were not against school policy until 2011

I could not believe that prior to 2011 UNC had no policies in place banning academically fraudulent courses. So I went to their Provost web site to check it out. They have a link to a policy "Policy on Assessment of Academic Programs and Non Instructional Unit Outcomes". Coincidently the link doesn't work. Why am I not surprised?

http://provost.unc.edu/policies/institutional-policies/

 

[CL82]

Maybe you should read the infractions report. To summarize, UNC stood by the courses even though it could have put their accreditation at risk. So the answer to your question is yes no show,poorly graded test etc were not against school policy until 2011

I have read the infractions report. It is written to provide a mechanism to let UNC go unpunished. Again, go back over what I've written and you can see how it could have been differently. Here's another one that I've posted elsewhere:

14.02.1 Academic Misconduct—Post-Enrollment. All institutional staff members and student-athletes are expected to act with honesty and integrity in all academic matters.​

It would certainly seem that giving grades based upon the amount needed for an athlete to remain eligibility for a no show, one paper course in which the only submission is not graded by the academic staff and not even read by a secretary prior to grading is a pretty fair indicator of institutional staff not acting "with honesty and integrity in all academic matters."

 

[dennismenace]

I have read the infractions report. It is written to provide a mechanism to let UNC go unpunished. Again, go back over what I've written and you can see how it could have been differently. Here's another one that I've posted elsewhere:

14.02.1 Academic Misconduct—Post-Enrollment. All institutional staff members and student-athletes are expected to act with honesty and integrity in all academic matters.​

It would certainly seem that giving grades based upon the amount needed for an athlete to remain eligibility for a no show, one paper course in which the only submission is not graded by the academic staff and not even read by a secretary prior to grading is a pretty fair indicator of institutional staff not acting "with honesty and integrity in all academic matters."

It reminds me of the book "Animal Farm"............"Everyone is equal; it's just that some are more equal than others"

 

[ramses 2.0]

I have read the infractions report. It is written to provide a mechanism to let UNC go unpunished. Again, go back over what I've written and you can see how it could have been differently. Here's another one that I've posted elsewhere:

14.02.1 Academic Misconduct—Post-Enrollment. All institutional staff members and student-athletes are expected to act with honesty and integrity in all academic matters.​

It would certainly seem that giving grades based upon the amount needed for an athlete to remain eligibility for a no show, one paper course in which the only submission is not graded by the academic staff and not even read by a secretary prior to grading is a pretty fair indicator of institutional staff not acting "with honesty and integrity in all academic matters."

And this bylaw has been applied to students cheating or academic staff doing the work themselves for the student. The Presidents who govern the NCAA made it that way. Universities have academic autonomy & only they can classify fraud under NCAA rules.

 

[CL82]

And this bylaw has been applied to students cheating or academic staff doing the work themselves for the student. The Presidents who govern the NCAA made it that way. Universities have academic autonomy & only they can classify fraud under NCAA rules.

14.02.1 Academic Misconduct—Post-Enrollment. All institutional staff members and student-athletes are expected to act with honesty and integrity in all academic matters.

Lol, I love how you are all about the by-laws, until you aren't. It says what it says.

Do you feel that that 1) giving grades based upon the score needed for an athlete to remain eligibility, rather than the quality of the work for a 2) no show, one paper course 3) in which the only submission is not graded by the academic staff and 4) not even read by a secretary prior to grading is a pretty fair indicator of institutional staff not acting "with honesty and integrity in all academic matters?"

 

[dennismenace]

And this bylaw has been applied to students cheating or academic staff doing the work themselves for the student. The Presidents who govern the NCAA made it that way. Universities have academic autonomy & only they can classify fraud under NCAA rules.

They may have academic autonomy but if they cannot (will not) apply the standard here of fraud themselves than the institution
itself is incapable of ethical self government. Basically "Since we have the power we will decide what "truth""is. Seem like the NCAA is pulling a Pontius Pilate and washing their hands of guilt. Perhaps a matter of form over substance.

 

[ramses 2.0]

14.02.1 Academic Misconduct—Post-Enrollment. All institutional staff members and student-athletes are expected to act with honesty and integrity in all academic matters.

Lol, I love how you are all about the by-laws, until you aren't. It says what it says.

Do you feel that that 1) giving grades based upon the score needed for an athlete to remain eligibility, rather than the quality of the work for a 2) no show, one paper course 3) in which the only submission is not graded by the academic staff and 4) not even read by a secretary prior to grading is a pretty fair indicator of institutional staff not acting "with honesty and integrity in all academic matters?"

Your beef is not with me, it's with the NCAA since they revised their policy a couple years ago that the University decides when academic fraud occurs on it's campus. That's how the majority of D1 schools want it. Now the NCAA is way beyond inconsistent in what it chooses to enforce & to answer your question these courses lacked integrity but that not what schools want to enforce

 

[dennismenace]

Your beef is not with me, it's with the NCAA since they revised their policy a couple years ago that the University decides when academic fraud occurs on it's campus. That's how the majority of D1 schools want it. Now the NCAA is way beyond inconsistent in what it chooses to enforce & to answer your question these courses lacked integrity but that not what schools want to enforce

The sneaker people wouldn't be too happy with that either so this way everybody wins, right? Oh, except the people in the institutions who were led to believe that integrity actually counted.

 

[Da_Aisijimo_Gou]

On message boards or otherwise, defenders of UNC Chapel Hill's prior morally vacuous no show, no requirements, no nothing courses and the undermined university's academic, athletic, and administrative (mis)leaders surely couldn't be UNC Chapel Hill employees, students, alumni, or legal representatives. All was and is fine!

 

[CL82]

Do you feel that that 1) giving grades based upon the score needed for an athlete to remain eligibility, rather than the quality of the work for a 2) no show, one paper course 3) in which the only submission is not graded by the academic staff and 4) not even read by a secretary prior to grading is a pretty fair indicator of institutional staff not acting "with honesty and integrity in all academic matters?"

Your beef is not with me, it's with the NCAA since they revised their policy a couple years ago that the University decides when academic fraud occurs on it's campus. That's how the majority of D1 schools want it. Now the NCAA is way beyond inconsistent in what it chooses to enforce & to answer your question these courses lacked integrity but that not what schools want to enforce

Avoidance of the question duly noted.

 

[David 76]

All the lines of logic are wrong. The NCAA chose to do nothing because UNC is a blue blood program in a P-5 conferences. It is not in the interest of the NCAA to piss them off and risk their wrath. So they didn't.
The rationale came later to justify the financial decision.