UNC has BIG trouble with NCAA...

[Kmoney]

Me too. Charges seem a little light to me, plus UNC's party line now is basically, "It was a long time ago, nothing has happened since 2011, and we have put corrective actions and new procedures in place to ensure nothing like this can ever happen again." Also ESPN didn't "break" the story today. They were 2 hours later than NBC, and their couple paragraphs with no detail at all were about as minimal as they could possibly get without just totally ignoring the news. Will be interesting to see the NCAA treatment.

I agree 100%. It will be a cold day in Hades, when ESPN breaks a negative story on one of their cash cows. I'd like to see a "30 for 30" on their own willful blindness.

 

[BigBird]

I agree 100%. It will be a cold day in Hades, when ESPN breaks a negative story on one of their cash cows. I'd like to see a "30 for 30" on their own willful blindness.

Ah, now I understand the pushback at my saying ESPN broke the story. Just to be clear, I saw the "breaking news" crawler flashing at the bottom of the screen, and hurried to post what I had learned. I probably chose my phrasing poorly. It is a funny thing, to be sure, how ESPN will expose some scandals (see FIFA) while seemingly paving over others.

 

[Beemer]

"Lack of instituional control" is not a slap on the wrist. For lesser violations, one might reason that some mistake might have occurred in administration. But in "control" violations, the administration IS the problem, specifically that they knew or should have known that violation(s) were taking place. I know that the popular view among BY'ers is that UNC will skate. I am betting the opposite, even if it takes a while longer for the NCAA to deliver their final verdict.

I sincerely hope you are right but I have my doubts.

 

[HoopsFan21]

Please. The only way the NCAA touches UNC is if they change their name to UConn, then it's game on, otherwise they'll wait it out until the headlines go away.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

The following is my analysis, with some insider information from multiple sources. Sorry for the length.

1) The NOA was very specific with respect to Allegation #1 (impermissible benefits to student-athletes from 2002 until 2011). This is being done to protect the legacy of legendary (and recently departed) UNC Coach Dean Smith. The Wainstein report and exhibits demonstrate that this systemic academic scandal actually began in 1993, when Dean Smith was still the head coach. Putting aside the evidence, though, if you think about what happened in 1991 and 1992, it also makes sense as to why this began in 1993 (Duke was coming off back-to-back NCAA Championships, and Coach K had just passed Dean Smith in terms of NCAA titles).

If you read Allegation #5, you see the systemic nature of the academic scandal covering 18 years and emphasizing football, men's basketball, and women's basketball.

2) Allegation #2 covers women's basketball, with an interesting time frame. Allegation #2 states that from 2007 until 2010, UNC provided extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements to women's basketball student-athletes. What is interesting is this is right when Gail Goestenkors left Duke and McCallie was hired. Duke had absolutely killed UNC on the court and in recruiting during Gail's last seven years at Duke. Hatchell saw this as a golden opportunity to get the upper hand.

3) The NOA is very interesting in terms of how it characterizes the academic fraud - "improper benefits/impermissible benefits." UNC offered different types of classes that were the subject of the scandal - paper classes, independent study, non-existent classes that were simply created for athletes with work done by others, etc.

This is how the NCAA is getting around having to go through each and every course over eighteen years to determine what was and what was not a fraudulent class. In essence, the NCAA is telling UNC that the school can stand behind the clases, but that due to the disproportionate number of athletes taking them and the way the classes were set up and managed both constitute preferential treatment and, therefore, impermissible benefits. And they were granted the impermissible benefits because of their status as athletes. WHen non-athletes ended up taking the courses (there is an email from one UNC official stating she did not mind non-athletes finding these classes as to avoid red flags).

Using the term "impermissible benefit" when referring to the academic shenanigans that went on for two decades means the NCAA does not have to examine each and every player (class by class, transcript by transcript, etc.) to determine GPA or the total number of fraudulent classes taken. The players received preferential treatment based on their athletic abilities. This is supported by the thousands of records (between the Wainstein Report and the NOA attachments) and the testimony/statements of advisors, secretaries, and professors were providing this "impermissible benefit".

4) The NCAA is clever in the use of the phrase "lack of institutional control." As with the benefits, use of the LOIC affords the NCAA the opportunity a broad range for Allegation #5.

The LOIC section clearly delineates systemic fraud by UNC over the course of several years, specifically referencing men's basketball. The exhibits supplement the LOIC. This is akin to a notice pleading, allowing UNC to understand the basis of the allegations, not delineate every single player who might have had eligibility issues. Rather, it summarizes the pattern and practice of improper benefits for athletes through paper/fictitious/sham "classes" based on existing evidence and shifts the burden to UNC to provide a legitimate defense.

UNC is on "notice" of the allegations of systemic fraud, specifically in reference to football, men's basketball, and women's basketball. UNC fans who claim that Roy Williams was not named are looking at this myopically or that the allegations do not specifically focus on men's basketball. If something is not included in the NOA, it cannot form the basis of an allegation and, therefore, cannot be part of a finding of a violation and a subsequent penalty. By being far more general but giving hundreds of exhibits and providing a general statement of the allegations, the NCAA is covered to bring a whole host of subsequent specific claims against UNC.

5) UNC fans stating that only ten athletes in eighteen years were not eligible do not understand the nature of the allegations and the NCAA rules. NCAA legislation specifically defines and categorizes different types of impermissible benefits (e.g., extra benefits, recruiting inducements, and preferential treatment). Regardless of the type of impermissible benefit, however, the prohibition is generally the same: under most circumstances, prospective and enrolled student-athletes (along with their friends and families) cannot receive goods or services based on their status as athletes. The following are categories of benefits that NCAA legislation prohibits boosters and other athletics stakeholders from providing to prospective and enrolled student-athletes:

• Cash and cost-free goods and services;
• Special discounts, payment arrangements, or credit options for products or services if the same are not available to all ASU students;
• Preferential treatment, benefits, or services based on a student-athlete’s athletics reputation, skill, or pay-back potential as a future professional athlete;
• Payment for work not performed or at unreasonable levels; and
• The purchase of items or services from student-athletes or their relatives at inflated prices.

Prospective and enrolled student-athletes who receive such benefits jeopardize their eligibility to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

The NCAA could argue and quite successfully that the large percentage of athletes registered in these fraudulent, paper, sham, etc. classes is unequivocally demonstrative of preferential treatment and, therefore, an impermissible benefit. Add the documents and emails discussing plagiarized papers, changing of grades, and the need for certain grades, the preferential treatment is even greater. Factor in the emails about the bifurcated classes and certain professors upset because "50 players" somehow showed up on class rosters, and you see even more preferential treatment.

Given all this overwhelming evidence, it *should* be on UNC to prove all their players in MBB, WBB, etc. were eligible, not on the NCAA to prove they were ineligible.

6. Women's Basketball Will Be Thrown Under the Bus. For the UNC men's basketball program, Dean Smith's legacy will be spared. They will more likely than not be able to keep the banners from 2005 and 2009, but will have some combination of recruiting restrictions, postseason ban, or period of probation. Women's basketball, however, will lose scholarships, have a postseason ban of multiple years, will be on probation, and will vacate wins.

The scandal started with men's basketball in 1993, but women's basketball will have a greater punishment. Men's basketball is the cash cow for the university; it anchors the other sports. And do not be surprised if Sylvia Hatchell retires very soon, referencing a medical condition.

 

[triaddukefan]

Please. The only way the NCAA touches UNC is if they change their name to UConn, then it's game on, otherwise they'll wait it out until the headlines go away.

 

[UConnCat]

UNC and Roy Williams on verge of a contract extension.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...alizing-coach-roy-williams-contract-extension

 

[Zorro]

I came across this video of someone reading Sylvia's statement.

http://media.giphy.com/media/3YR52U0bPRh6w/giphy.gif

 

[DogWarden]

thats a bit harsh, dont you think ?

No!!

 

[j66kicker]

The following is my analysis, with some insider information from multiple sources. Sorry for the length.

1) The NOA was very specific with respect to Allegation #1 (impermissible benefits to student-athletes from 2002 until 2011). This is being done to protect the legacy of legendary (and recently departed) UNC Coach Dean Smith. The Wainstein report and exhibits demonstrate that this systemic academic scandal actually began in 1993, when Dean Smith was still the head coach. Putting aside the evidence, though, if you think about what happened in 1991 and 1992, it also makes sense as to why this began in 1993 (Duke was coming off back-to-back NCAA Championships, and Coach K had just passed Dean Smith in terms of NCAA titles).

If you read Allegation #5, you see the systemic nature of the academic scandal covering 18 years and emphasizing football, men's basketball, and women's basketball.

2) Allegation #2 covers women's basketball, with an interesting time frame. Allegation #2 states that from 2007 until 2010, UNC provided extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements to women's basketball student-athletes. What is interesting is this is right when Gail Goestenkors left Duke and McCallie was hired. Duke had absolutely killed UNC on the court and in recruiting during Gail's last seven years at Duke. Hatchell saw this as a golden opportunity to get the upper hand.

3) The NOA is very interesting in terms of how it characterizes the academic fraud - "improper benefits/impermissible benefits." UNC offered different types of classes that were the subject of the scandal - paper classes, independent study, non-existent classes that were simply created for athletes with work done by others, etc.

This is how the NCAA is getting around having to go through each and every course over eighteen years to determine what was and what was not a fraudulent class. In essence, the NCAA is telling UNC that the school can stand behind the clases, but that due to the disproportionate number of athletes taking them and the way the classes were set up and managed both constitute preferential treatment and, therefore, impermissible benefits. And they were granted the impermissible benefits because of their status as athletes. WHen non-athletes ended up taking the courses (there is an email from one UNC official stating she did not mind non-athletes finding these classes as to avoid red flags).

Using the term "impermissible benefit" when referring to the academic shenanigans that went on for two decades means the NCAA does not have to examine each and every player (class by class, transcript by transcript, etc.) to determine GPA or the total number of fraudulent classes taken. The players received preferential treatment based on their athletic abilities. This is supported by the thousands of records (between the Wainstein Report and the NOA attachments) and the testimony/statements of advisors, secretaries, and professors were providing this "impermissible benefit".

4) The NCAA is clever in the use of the phrase "lack of institutional control." As with the benefits, use of the LOIC affords the NCAA the opportunity a broad range for Allegation #5.

The LOIC section clearly delineates systemic fraud by UNC over the course of several years, specifically referencing men's basketball. The exhibits supplement the LOIC. This is akin to a notice pleading, allowing UNC to understand the basis of the allegations, not delineate every single player who might have had eligibility issues. Rather, it summarizes the pattern and practice of improper benefits for athletes through paper/fictitious/sham "classes" based on existing evidence and shifts the burden to UNC to provide a legitimate defense.

UNC is on "notice" of the allegations of systemic fraud, specifically in reference to football, men's basketball, and women's basketball. UNC fans who claim that Roy Williams was not named are looking at this myopically or that the allegations do not specifically focus on men's basketball. If something is not included in the NOA, it cannot form the basis of an allegation and, therefore, cannot be part of a finding of a violation and a subsequent penalty. By being far more general but giving hundreds of exhibits and providing a general statement of the allegations, the NCAA is covered to bring a whole host of subsequent specific claims against UNC.

5) UNC fans stating that only ten athletes in eighteen years were not eligible do not understand the nature of the allegations and the NCAA rules. NCAA legislation specifically defines and categorizes different types of impermissible benefits (e.g., extra benefits, recruiting inducements, and preferential treatment). Regardless of the type of impermissible benefit, however, the prohibition is generally the same: under most circumstances, prospective and enrolled student-athletes (along with their friends and families) cannot receive goods or services based on their status as athletes. The following are categories of benefits that NCAA legislation prohibits boosters and other athletics stakeholders from providing to prospective and enrolled student-athletes:

• Cash and cost-free goods and services;
• Special discounts, payment arrangements, or credit options for products or services if the same are not available to all ASU students;
• Preferential treatment, benefits, or services based on a student-athlete’s athletics reputation, skill, or pay-back potential as a future professional athlete;
• Payment for work not performed or at unreasonable levels; and
• The purchase of items or services from student-athletes or their relatives at inflated prices.

Prospective and enrolled student-athletes who receive such benefits jeopardize their eligibility to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

The NCAA could argue and quite successfully that the large percentage of athletes registered in these fraudulent, paper, sham, etc. classes is unequivocally demonstrative of preferential treatment and, therefore, an impermissible benefit. Add the documents and emails discussing plagiarized papers, changing of grades, and the need for certain grades, the preferential treatment is even greater. Factor in the emails about the bifurcated classes and certain professors upset because "50 players" somehow showed up on class rosters, and you see even more preferential treatment.

Given all this overwhelming evidence, it *should* be on UNC to prove all their players in MBB, WBB, etc. were eligible, not on the NCAA to prove they were ineligible.

6. Women's Basketball Will Be Thrown Under the Bus. For the UNC men's basketball program, Dean Smith's legacy will be spared. They will more likely than not be able to keep the banners from 2005 and 2009, but will have some combination of recruiting restrictions, postseason ban, or period of probation. Women's basketball, however, will lose scholarships, have a postseason ban of multiple years, will be on probation, and will vacate wins.

The scandal started with men's basketball in 1993, but women's basketball will have a greater punishment. Men's basketball is the cash cow for the university; it anchors the other sports. And do not be surprised if Sylvia Hatchell retires very soon, referencing a medical condition.

Great commentary! ESPN is already on the "women's basketball taking the brunt of the penalties" bandwagon. Scott Van Pelt said this morning on ESPN Radio that, "It looks like the allegations are focused on women's basketball." What a joke.

 

[triaddukefan]

Welp...... with the UNC's wcbb impending post-season ban... I cant imagine the ACC letting them participate in the ACC women's tournament. Im really gonna miss seeing all of the tarheel fans dressed in that ugly shade of blue in the Coliseum

Sad thing for them is that if Xylina McDaniel qualified for a redshirt (not sure if she did or not) ... the 2016-2017 season would be the senior years for #1, Gray, and McDaniel, and their fans were looking forward to a run to a Final 4. Oh well.. too bad for them.. lemme go eat some breakfast.

 

[CocoHusky]

Welp. with the UNC's wcbb impending post-season ban... I cant imagine the ACC letting them participate in the ACC women's tournament. Im really gonna miss seeing all of the tarheel fans dressed in that ugly shade of blue in the Coliseum

Sad thing for them is that if Xylina McDaniel qualified for a redshirt (not sure if she did or not) ... the 2016-2017 season would be the senior years for #1, Gray, and McDaniel, and their fans were looking forward to a run to a Final 4. Oh well.. too bad for them.. lemme go eat some breakfast.

Ironically that team matched up well for some reason with both SC and Lady Vols. A healthy X in a rematch with DD in the tournament might have been must see TV.

 

[cbraarj]

Me too. Charges seem a little light to me, plus UNC's party line now is basically, "It was a long time ago, nothing has happened since 2011, and we have put corrective actions and new procedures in place to ensure nothing like this can ever happen again." Also ESPN didn't "break" the story today. They were 2 hours later than NBC, and their couple paragraphs with no detail at all were about as minimal as they could possibly get without just totally ignoring the news. Will be interesting to see the NCAA treatment.

UConn Men lost a year because of the APR scores of a prior team that had the bad APR.If these accusations are true they should be held accountable.