OT: NCAA drops the hammer on Arkansas Pine Bluff | The Boneyard

OT: NCAA drops the hammer on Arkansas Pine Bluff

Status
Not open for further replies.
pap49cba

pap49cba

The Supreme Linkster
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
8,082
Reaction Score
10,136
Perhaps someone can explain the difference between this situation and UNC?

LINK
 
Whoop-de-doo! The NCAA captured a big fish! No need for the NCAA to go after anyone else. I guess UNC is home free.
 
For any semblance of credibility and morality, the NCAA is called out by humankind at large - student athletes & relatives, sports fans and anyone who can see ... if North Carolina does not at least get the sanctions that Arkansas Pine Bluff got ... it is over for the NCAA as substance and appearance have been grossly compromised ... and obvious ... the NCAA would stand out as 'the emperor has no clothes' ... 'plausible deniability has worn so thin' (OneTrickPony) ... that it is no longer plausible ...
 
Arkansas-Pine Bluff, in addition to lacking money & plausible deniability, also lacks the prestige of being a major Division I university. Therefore no distinguished, connected & wealthy alumni to worry about coming after the NCAA for punishing their alma mater.
 
Honestly after some of the NCAA's emails were made public in the Penn State case a few days ago, I don't see how its membership, especially the P5, will stand for it any longer.
 
msf22b said:
Sure
UNC was far more egregious.
Expand ...
Agree. Arkansas Pine Bluff didn't create any fake classes. Looks like only the Athletic Dept. was culpable - they just faked eligibility certifications, and sometimes just played ineligible players without even bothering with the dummy paperwork. UNC's situation involved much more complex cooperation between the athletic and academic entities, which extended for for 18 years, rather than 5.
 
OneTrickPony said:
Plausible deniability...although the plausibility has worn so thin that the NCAA will have a hard time disappearing behind it...
Expand ...
Thinner than a wedding night negligee.
 
NCAA's official line on UNC is that the fake classes were open to all. As long as you pass out worthless degrees to *everyone*, non-athletes included, it's ok.

Looks like Arkansas Pine-Bluff had the world's worst compliance office. It wasn't even academic stuff, mostly, it seems. Just not complying with all of the NCAA's byzantine bylaws.
 
Orangutan said:
NCAA's official line on UNC is that the fake classes were open to all. As long as you pass out worthless degrees to *everyone*, non-athletes included, it's ok.

Looks like Arkansas Pine-Bluff had the world's worst compliance office. It wasn't even academic stuff, mostly, it seems. Just not complying with all of the NCAA's byzantine bylaws.
Expand ...

UNC had an athlete's advisor naming the grade she needed for eligibility and actually helping some players write their papers. These were not benefits available to ordinary students and, given the scope of the academic fraud, weren't isolated occurrences. If they don't go down hard whatever shred of credibility the NCAA has left is gone.
 
kibblesnbits said:
UNC had an athlete's advisor naming the grade she needed for eligibility and actually helping some players write their papers. These were not benefits available to ordinary students and, given the scope of the academic fraud, weren't isolated occurrences. If they don't go down hard whatever shred of credibility the NCAA has left is gone.
Expand ...

Fair, I was just remembering what I had heard about the no-show classes.
 
Orangutan said:
NCAA's official line on UNC is that the fake classes were open to all. As long as you pass out worthless degrees to *everyone*, non-athletes included, it's ok.

Looks like Arkansas Pine-Bluff had the world's worst compliance office. It wasn't even academic stuff, mostly, it seems. Just not complying with all of the NCAA's byzantine bylaws.
Expand ...
Except that at the beginning the classes were started to benefit athletes and not designed for all.
 
Icebear said:
Thinner than a wedding night negligee.
Expand ...

Wait... It is custom to wear a negligee on your wedding night? Not flannel jammies? Maybe that is where I went wrong.
 
msf22b said:
Sure
UNC was far more egregious.
Expand ...
Yep.

Question - UConn fails to meet an Ex post facto APR rule gets one year postseason ban. Arkansas commits a half decade of fraud and gets the same ban. Anyone else have an issue with that?
 
Icebear said:
Except that at the beginning the classes were started to benefit athletes and not designed for all.
Expand ...

Right but the NCAA doesn't care about intent. In this instance. They seem to make the rules up as they go.
 
Orangutan said:
Right but the NCAA doesn't care about intent. In this instance. They seem to make the rules up as they go.
Expand ...
Seems to be a lot of that going around in that organization these days. I guess at the end of the day, if the NCAA wants to nail a program they can, and when they don't they won't. The only variable in the enforcement equation is the NCAA's motivation or predisposition towards certain schools. To me, it has a certain personal feel to the way punishment is doled out.
 
rbny1 said:
Whoop-de-doo! The NCAA captured a big fish! No need for the NCAA to go after anyone else. I guess UNC is home free.
Expand ...
wait, wait, since the school also provided books to non-athlete students, it is no longer an athletic department issue! :) They should not be punished..
 
Well, I can see the difference in what the school did, as far as that goes. Someone above correctly specified the issue difference - Ark PB didn't do the compliance paperwork or worry about whether or not the athlete was eligible. UNC followed protocol - although the numbers supplied from the "academic" side were fake and at least some (possibly all) of the folks filling out the paperwork knew it. Still, I think it would be processed differently if the athletic side "made up" the grade, vs. reporting the "made-up" grade they were given (and yes, complicit in).

That certainly doesn't excuse not punishing UNC for their issues - probably worse than Pine Bluff's since we don't know how many of the "ineligible" athletes would have been eligible if protocol was followed. There is no excuse and I think, combined with the Penn State stuff, could mean the end of the NCAA as we know it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
312
Guests online
5,300
Total visitors
5,612
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,268
Messages
4,347,558
Members
10,155
Latest member
OwenMoney


.
..
Top Bottom