CL82
NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 59,840
- Reaction Score
- 224,228
Many people are likely tired of that, while the source may have found his solution
![]()
More like:
Many people are likely tired of that, while the source may have found his solution
![]()
Maybe most are embarrassed as they obviously should be. However, the ones I’ve seen on these boards have been arrogant and smug. They actually believed they should not have been punished, and at the same time believe that UNC is and should’ve regarded as an elite university.I feel sorry UNC fans. They must be embarrassed. I'm thankful we are not in their shoes. I'm thankful i dont have to spin this nonsense.
Yeah, i kinda saw the same.Maybe most are embarrassed as they obviously should be. However, the ones I’ve seen on these boards have been arrogant and smug. They actually believed they should not have been punished, and at the same time believe that UNC is and should’ve regarded as an elite university.
We never need that clown again. We are still paying for Dick getting involved over a decade ago.
The APR never had any meaning. Chief has been vindicated as has Coach Calhoun.
The verdict didn't go our way...burn cars, smash windows, fight the cops...it is, after all, the new American way.
A whole bunch of bSthen wtf is the apr? both have to do with academics
Bilas was s critic of the APR metricthen wtf is the apr? both have to do with academics
Not so much, actually. Organizations are allowed to have rules. One of the NCAA's rules is APR. Another is the minimum CGPA needed for a player to be eligible. UNC provided fraudulent information regarding APR. Had they provided honest information they wouldn't have been eligible for the post season and some of their players would be ineligible. The punishment for playing an ineligible player is forfeiture of the game. The NCAA could have, under their existing rules, declared every game that UNC played with ineligible players forfeit and vacated the wins. Playing ineligible for 20 years would seem to be a pretty good indicator of institutional failure to monitor. You are looking at scholarship reductions and lost of post season play potentially.That's
Which is why the NCAA would have eventually lost in court
No the NCAA has to try to apply violations to bylaws adopted by the membership & that was always going to be a problem since they have historically left academic rigor up to each school. UNC felt this was a academic matter that had already been dealt with thru SACSNot so much, actually. Organizations are allowed to have rules. One of the NCAA's rules is APR. Another is the minimum CGPA needed for a player to be eligible. UNC provided fraudulent information regarding APR. Had they provided honest information they wouldn't have been eligible for the post season and some of their players would be ineligible. The punishment for playing an ineligible player is forfeiture of the game. The NCAA could have, under their existing rules, declared every game that UNC played with ineligible players forfeit and vacated the wins. Playing ineligible for 20 years would seem to be a pretty good indicator of institutional failure to monitor. You are looking at scholarship reductions and lost of post season play potentially.
The NCAA, deliberately in my view, cast this as a "impermissible benefits issue" because then UNC's well if at at least one non-athlete got the benefit as well, it's not a sports argument is more effective. It isn't the logical or most efficient way to attack the behavior though. You have take a pretty tortured stance to suggest that that was the issue. (As an aside the a very large percentage of the money sports athletes were in these classes but only an infinitesimal portion of the general student body were in them. It would be easy for the NCAA to have concluded that they were not available to the general student body in practice. They chose not to.)
If you really want to get to the bottom of this FOIA the original penalty report that UNC shut down. I feel pretty confident that it did't exonerate the school. Otherwise, why would they suppress it until after their fundraising event?
Oh! I understand now! UNC felt that the university providing false APR and player eligibility data to the NCAA was none of the NCAA's business. Help me out here, where is the NCAA's bylaw that allows schools to provide bogus academic data if it feels that NCAA isn't entitled to accurate information? I must have missed it.No the NCAA has to try to apply violations to bylaws adopted by the membership & that was always going to be a problem since they have historically left academic rigor up to each school. UNC felt this was a academic matter that had already been dealt with thru SACS
UNC provided fraudulent information regarding APR. Had they provided honest information they wouldn't have been eligible for the post season and some of their players would be ineligible.
Oh! I understand now! UNC felt that the university providing false APR and player eligibility data to the NCAA was none of the NCAA's business. Help me out here, where is the NCAA's bylaw that allows schools to provide bogus academic data if it feels that NCAA isn't entitled to accurate information? I must have missed it.
That's the best way to frame it 'medic, from the UNC perspective. Yet the courses were so far out of the norm of acceptable college course work that it the school was put on probation by it academics regulating body. So the question whether the school knew or "should have known" that the courses being used were not up to standard for collegiate work. For example, giving a semesters worth of course credit for a no show class in which the "student athlete" only had to submit a paragraph? I think it fair to say that any reasonable college official would know, or "should know," that that is not college level work. Heck it's not high school level work, or middle school for that matter.For argument sake:
For the information to be fraudulent/bogus - wouldn’t that have had to lie about the grades all the students received? I don’t believe the classes were invalidated by anyone - leaving students credits short. So the grade was the grade. APR is only about progress towards graduation not about how “easy” the classes were. A biology class @ Memphis carries the same weight as a biology class @ Yale - no?
That's the best way to frame it 'medic, from the UNC perspective. Yet the courses were so far out of the norm of acceptable college course work that it the school was put on probation by it academics regulating body. So the question whether the school knew or "should have known" that the courses being used were not up to standard for collegiate work. For example, giving a semesters worth of course credit for a no show class in which the "student athlete" only had to submit a paragraph? I think it fair to say that any reasonable college official would know, or "should know," that that is not college level work. Heck it's not high school level work, or middle school for that matter.
"Golly I didn't know" isn't a defense when a reasonable person, in this case a reasonable college administrator, would know. Here UNC deviated so dramatically from the standards of what is acceptable, their submission of these grades to the NCAA seems to be actively fraudulent.
Would it be a violation for a basketball staff member to do the course work (for a real course)? Would it be a violation to fabricate a grade for work that was never done at all? If not, then the whole thing really is a sham. If it is, then how is this materially different? The staff knew what they were doing, so it was exactly the same in spirit, if superficially different in method.