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

[uconngb]

Lol, that is delusional even for you my friend. Are you breaking the Thorazine in half again?

This is PRICELESS!!

 

[uconngb]

I told a strong stand againat the NCAA when they went against Coach, while many casual “UConn” fans pointed their figures at UConn.

Annnnnnd, Chief reaches a new low. Staggering......

 

[Jimdish255]

If the NCAA's calculations are correct this abomination will fall right off the radar this week as if it had never happened. Is there any blowback from any entity besides our fans that will amount to anything?

 

[Jimdish255]

What this means is that the NCAA's lawyers didn't think the NCAA could win in court. So the NCAA decided to back down instead of forcing a court case that would establish a legal precedent the NCAA felt would not be in its interest. It indicates just how weak the NCAA's case was. There is no conspiracy here. This was just the inevitable outcome of NCAA prosecutorial overreach.

This is an accreditation issue. It is not an NCAA issue.

Or simply that the Infractions Committee felt pressure to stand down. Why is it so hard to point out the obvious corruption of a buddy system driven by money? The classes were a fraud and athletes were funneled into them at great preference to the general student body. They were meant to circumvent the APR rules and dismiss the academic standards this particular school actually had for most of the undergrad population. This was way out of bounds and obvious to anyone but the Committee who appears to have undermined the work of it's own investigators. As stated earlier, "a travesty of a mockery of a sham." If the NCAA had no jurisdiction here then they have zero over any school's APR.

 

[CL82]

What this means is that the NCAA's lawyers didn't think the NCAA could win in court. So the NCAA decided to back down instead of forcing a court case that would establish a legal precedent the NCAA felt would not be in its interest. It indicates just how weak the NCAA's case was. There is no conspiracy here. This was just the inevitable outcome of NCAA prosecutorial overreach.

This is an accreditation issue. It is not an NCAA issue.

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.

So that leaves us with the question "Why did the NCAA chose to review this matter in the only way that UNC could prevail?" I hope that press will pursue it. Minimally, FOIA'ing the original penalty notification letter from the NCAA should be insightful.

 

[Conndog]

What if parents of a student who took these courses at North Carolina sued both the school and NCAA for educational fraud of their son/daughter? They were deprived of adequate education and harmed as a result. Neither institution looked out for the best interests of their son/daughter.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

What if parents of a student who took these courses at North Carolina sued both the school and NCAA for educational fraud of their son/daughter? They were deprived of adequate education and harmed as a result. Neither institution looked out for the best interests of their son/daughter.

Rashad McCants... we've come full circle.

Don't know if he actually sued or not.

 

[jibsey]

Our big APR mistake was not having total gaff courses for the entire student body that our players could stay academically eligible with. If we put them in place now we can get kids to play for us that have no business being in high school let alone college. Another benefit would be for the players to have more personal workout time on their own beyond practices, without school courses to worry about. Still no big hoop broadcaster or media names enraged about this.

 

[CL82]

Our big APR mistake was not having total gaff courses for the entire student body that our players could stay academically eligible with. If we put them in place now we can get kids to play for us that have no business being in high school let alone college. Another benefit would be for the players to have more personal workout time on their own beyond practices, without school courses to worry about. Still no big hoop broadcaster or media names enraged about this.

I actually think our big mistake was hiring Emmert. His epic mismanagement of the UConn 2000 funds and projects hurt the university financially. His subsequent butt hurt regarding the reasonable criticism he received contributed, in my belief, to the NCAA retroactively applying new APR calculation rules to old data which resulted in our sanction. Let me be clear about this. Under the old rules our transfers would not have been grounds for a post season ban. Under the new rules, using the current data at the time, we met the standards. It was only the combination of new rules and old data in which we'd be eligible for punishment. That was what the NCAA did.

 

[Travelman6]

The NCAA is not coherent, is anyone really shocked? Apply new rules, retroactively, to old data to punish one team. Totally ignore another teams erroneous APR scores based on fake classes for another bigger school.

 

[freescooter]

UNC gamed the system remarkably well and put the NCAA in a really untenable position because they can’t be deciding on course content, grading, and similar matters. Ask upstater if he would want some squint from the NCAA deciding if his course was up to its standards. Heck even within a single university department class content, assignments and grading can vary widely. It is common knowledge among the student body that you want professor Smith not Jones for History 215. And how do you compare a class from a glorified middle school like Louisville with one from a legitimate university? So even though it was totally wrong, it would have required the NCAA to cross a line it could not cross to mete out major penalties.

 

[freescooter]

The NCAA is not coherent, is anyone really shocked? Apply new rules, retroactively, to old data to punish one team. Totally ignore another teams erroneous APR scores based on fake classes for another bigger school.

The issue of APR is really unrelated. By definition UNC didn’t supply fake APRS. The only way to do that would have been to declare these classes void and UNC wouldn’t do that because it would have caused problems for both athletes and non athletes who used these toward graduation.

 

[CL82]

Disagree. The NCAA won't question a course if it is in line with institutional policy. If I were investigating I would ask UNC to give a written response as to whether no show, one paper classes that were graded, but not read, by administrative, not academic, staff were a part of its policy as as university. If it says no, then the course can fairly be disregarded and they've got eligibility issues. If it says yes, then they are looking at accreditation issues again, without the benefit of blaming rogue staff.

The NCAA didn't pursue this. They could have though.

 

[ramses 2.0]

Disagree. The NCAA won't question a course if it is in line with institutional policy. If I were investigating I would ask UNC to give a written response as to whether no show, one paper classes that were graded, but not read, by administrative, not academic, staff were a part of its policy as as university. If it says no, then the course can fairly be disregarded and they've got eligibility issues. If it says yes, then they are looking at accreditation issues again, without the benefit of blaming rogue staff.

The NCAA didn't pursue this. They could have though.

The university has already said that the grades received & credit earned from these courses will stand. SACS is already aware of this

 

[AZHuskiePop]

I actually think our big mistake was hiring Emmert. His epic mismanagement of the UConn 2000 funds and projects hurt the university financially. His subsequent butt hurt regarding the reasonable criticism he received contributed, in my belief, to the NCAA retroactively applying new APR calculation rules to old data which resulted in our sanction. Let me be clear about this. Under the old rules our transfers would not have been grounds for a post season ban. Under the new rules, using the current data at the time, we met the standards. It was only the combination of new rules and old data in which we'd be eligible for punishment. That was what the NCAA did.

I think it was a personal vendetta against JC. The NCAA felt justified in bending the rules or getting creative with them because is was a Quid Pro Quo
for us circumventing the existing NCAA punishment in landing Andre Drummond .We were being punish by loss of scholarships due to 2008 APR and the infamous Nate Miles case.
We were suppose to have 10 players but in 2011-12 we had actually had 11 .
Apparently the walk on story wasn’t taken seriously by them.

I think they took that very personally. They can tolerate cheaters especially from the right schools but they have no patience for guys that thumb their noses at them in defiance .

 

[Travelman6]

UNC gamed the system remarkably well and put the NCAA in a really untenable position because they can’t be deciding on course content, grading, and similar matters. Ask upstater if he would want some squint from the NCAA deciding if his course was up to its standards. Heck even within a single university department class content, assignments and grading can vary widely. It is common knowledge among the student body that you want professor Smith not Jones for History 215. And how do you compare a class from a glorified middle school like Louisville with one from a legitimate university? So even though it was totally wrong, it would have required the NCAA to cross a line it could not cross to mete out major penalties.

APR is about academics, no?
UNC was on the hook, so to speak for 4 years as this investigation occured (and it was in regards to their academics, no?)

If the classes were fradulant, that would artificially inflate their APR, no? Making their APR also fradulant.
Uconn got punished for a somewhat low APR.
UNC was let off the hook after fake classes (that led to fradulant APR scores) that many say spanned two decades..

It is all kind of related...

 

[Rocktheworld]

Ethically, there is no difference. That's not relevant. The NCAA doesn't enforce ethics. It enforces its rules.

What rules did they cite when they egregiously over-reached and inappropriately punished Penn State for its apparent non-ethics violations?

 

[CL82]

The university has already said that the grades received & credit earned from these courses will stand. SACS is already aware of this

True but they also disavowed the way the course was administered. Can't have it both ways. The question is whether no show, one paper classes that were graded, but not read, by administrative, not academic, staff were a part of its policy as as university.

 

[ramses 2.0]

True but they also disavowed the way the course was administered. Can't have it both ways. The question is whether no show, one paper classes that were graded, but not read, by administrative, not academic, staff were a part of its policy as as university.

And like they have said each course from 1993-2011 will be honored under policies in place at that time. So previous adminstrations allowed the courses & that's just the bottom line

 

[huskymedic]

 

[ctchamps]

Just posturing. They've already had a scathing investigation to work with and gave UNC the probationary wrist slap. All this will do is give cover for the NCAA.

 

[CL82]

And like they have said each course from 1993-2011 will be honored under policies in place at that time. So previous adminstrations allowed the courses & that's just the bottom line

You are conflating the terms allowed/honored with planned/adopted. When you go to store and an object is mis-priced such that it is below their cost, the store may (and actually must under some consumer protection law) honor the price. That's different from having a plan whereby all products will sold at less than cost. Likewise, UNC "honoring" the grading of it's fraudulent courses, doesn't mean that they had a plan have all courses to be nonsubstantive. The NCAA won't question the university's academic plan, but UNC has never said that it planned to commit academic fraud. If it did, it would lose accreditation. So UNC is walking a tightrope to the NCAA it's saying yeah, these are our courses and you can't do anything about it, but to the accrediting body it is saying, whoops, this was a mistake we've corrected it. They shouldn't be allowed to play it both ways and the NCAA forcing them to acknowledge whether these were part of the university's academic plan (which would make them unassailable from the NCAA's rules but cause accreditation issues) or whether they were an aberration (which didn't cause loss of accreditation, but would mean that weren't part of the university's policy and thus not protected for NCAA purposes.)

Understand?

 

[ramses 2.0]

You are conflating the terms allowed/honored with planned/adopted. When you go to store and an object is mis-priced such that it is below their cost, the store may (and actually must under some consumer protection law) honor the price. That's different from having a plan whereby all products will sold at less than cost. Likewise, UNC "honoring" the grading of it's fraudulent courses, doesn't mean that they had a plan have all courses to be nonsubstantive. The NCAA won't question the university's academic plan, but UNC has never said that it planned to commit academic fraud. If it did, it would lose accreditation. So UNC is walking a tightrope to the NCAA it's saying yeah, these are our courses and you can't do anything about it, but to the accrediting body it is saying, whoops, this was a mistake we've corrected it. They shouldn't be allowed to play it both ways and the NCAA forcing them to acknowledge whether these were part of the university's academic plan (which would make them unassailable from the NCAA's rules but cause accreditation issues) or whether they were an aberration (which didn't cause loss of accreditation, but would mean that weren't part of the university's policy and thus not protected for NCAA purposes.)

Understand?

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

 

[jibsey]

The glove didn’t fit so OJ was innocent right? So technically North Carolina beats this rap but anyone who doesn’t understand that those courses kept some of their players on the floor is nuts. Take out the A’s, put in F’s and recalculate. Bet their APR would look bad. Why F’s? Because anyone in the course knew it was a scam. We don’t expect the NCAA to completely do what’s right but college basketball sure needed them to do something.

 

[freescooter]

Disagree. The NCAA won't question a course if it is in line with institutional policy. If I were investigating I would ask UNC to give a written response as to whether no show, one paper classes that were graded, but not read, by administrative, not academic, staff were a part of its policy as as university. If it says no, then the course can fairly be disregarded and they've got eligibility issues. If it says yes, then they are looking at accreditation issues again, without the benefit of blaming rogue staff.

The NCAA didn't pursue this. They could have though.

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.