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

[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.

 

[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.