UNC Ruling: No NCAA Academic Rules Violation

[mbr33ct]

.......the students who took these classes did the work (minimal as it was) with assistance of the tutors and the majority of the students were non athletes..that was the out for UNC....

Lol, I guess if the course description is "too good to be true", at UNC.....take it!

 

[Dillon77]

Between the responses here and on the men's board, there's very little in the press release that bears the scrutiny of the ink that was used to print it.
However, this paragraph (I've italicized it) just keeps coming back to me:

"The panel noted that its ability to determine whether academic fraud occurred at UNC was limited by the NCAA principle relying on individual member schools to determine whether academic fraud occurred on their own campuses. North Carolina said the work was assigned, completed, turned in and graded, often by the former secretary, under the professor’s guidelines. While the university admitted the courses failed to meet its own expectations and standards, the university maintained that the courses did not violate its policies at the time."

- So, the NCAA is relying on North Carolina to admit it's own culpability first? Yes, UNC "...maintained that the courses did not violate its policies at the time," but we shouldn't be punished for that because we've got higher standards now. Umm, where there's smoke over the course of years, there is a fire.

- The former secretary and professor were wholly responsible for the work from a to zed, yet they were the ones who did not cooperate and, in the end, received a penalty that means squat. I hate to infer anything sinister, but given this whitewash, what the heck: were said individuals encouraged/incentivized not to testify?

I'd give them a failing grade but their by-laws probably say they can only grade themselves.

 

[wbbfan]

Surprise surprise.

 

[CocoHusky]

.......the students who took these classes did the work (minimal as it was) with assistance of the tutors and the majority of the students were non athletes..that was the out for UNC....

I cannot believe that you an Ivy league graduate could be so easily fooled.

The enrollment:
" Between 1989 and 2011, there were a total of 2,707 total student enrollments in AFAM independent studies.60. Applying the assertion by Crowder and Nyang’oro, that means that more than 1,354 of those enrollments received a Crowder-managed independent study with no interaction with a faculty member. Analyzing these enrollments, we found 2,090 individual students who took one or more AFAM independent studies during that period. Of that number, 91 students were enrolled in three AFAM independent studies, 23 students were enrolled in four, six students took five, and one student was enrolled in six. Of the 30 students enrolled in four or more AFAM independent studies, 15 (50%) were student-athletes.

My question: If roughly half the enrollments (1354 of 2707) did not have interaction with a faculty member how was the work ("however minimal") verify to be of any quality?


The grades:
The grades earned in these AFAM paper classes were significantly higher than grades awarded in the regular AFAM classes. The average grade issued to all identified students in the paper classes was 3.62, as compared to an average grade of 3.28 for the regular AFAM classes. That difference was even greater for student-athletes. The average grade given to all student athletes for the paper classes was 3.55, as compared to an average student athlete grade of 2.84 for the regular AFAM classes.
The inflated grades from the paper classes had a significant impact on student and student-athlete GPAs and academic standing. Each paper class grade increased a student’s GPA, on average, by approximately .03 grade points. The significance of this effect could be seen in the number of students for whom the paper class grade made the difference in reaching or not reaching the 2.0 grade threshold. In the case of 329 students, the grade they received in a paper class provided the “GPA boost” that either kept or pushed their GPA above the 2.0 level for a semester. For 81 of those students, that GPA boost was the margin that gave them the 2.0 GPA that allowed them to graduate.

My comment: There is no doubt that many UNC students recognized AFAM major as an easy major and jumped on board but for those non-Athletes there is no benefit in taking an easy major. There can also be no doubt that there was a tangible benefit (eligibility to play) and 329 times a student was given "exactly" the grade required to remain eligible.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi715LRiu7WAhWBViYKHW5-BjAQFggzMAI&url=https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1CSFaD9O-8e8HgujjBV9pn

 

[Orangutan]

With this out of the way, the NCAA is free to focus on what's truly important - enforcing ridiculous transfer rules:

N.C. State Freshman Braxton Beverly Ruled Ineligible For Going To School

 

[Charliebball]

I cannot believe that you an Ivy league graduate could be so easily fooled.

The enrollment:
" Between 1989 and 2011, there were a total of 2,707 total student enrollments in AFAM independent studies.60. Applying the assertion by Crowder and Nyang’oro, that means that more than 1,354 of those enrollments received a Crowder-managed independent study with no interaction with a faculty member. Analyzing these enrollments, we found 2,090 individual students who took one or more AFAM independent studies during that period. Of that number, 91 students were enrolled in three AFAM independent studies, 23 students were enrolled in four, six students took five, and one student was enrolled in six. Of the 30 students enrolled in four or more AFAM independent studies, 15 (50%) were student-athletes.

My question: If roughly half the enrollments (1354 of 2707) did not have interaction with a faculty member how was the work ("however minimal") verify to be of any quality?


The grades:
The grades earned in these AFAM paper classes were significantly higher than grades awarded in the regular AFAM classes. The average grade issued to all identified students in the paper classes was 3.62, as compared to an average grade of 3.28 for the regular AFAM classes. That difference was even greater for student-athletes. The average grade given to all student athletes for the paper classes was 3.55, as compared to an average student athlete grade of 2.84 for the regular AFAM classes.
The inflated grades from the paper classes had a significant impact on student and student-athlete GPAs and academic standing. Each paper class grade increased a student’s GPA, on average, by approximately .03 grade points. The significance of this effect could be seen in the number of students for whom the paper class grade made the difference in reaching or not reaching the 2.0 grade threshold. In the case of 329 students, the grade they received in a paper class provided the “GPA boost” that either kept or pushed their GPA above the 2.0 level for a semester. For 81 of those students, that GPA boost was the margin that gave them the 2.0 GPA that allowed them to graduate.

My comment: There is no doubt that many UNC students recognized AFAM major as an easy major and jumped on board but for those non-Athletes there is no benefit in taking an easy major. There can also be no doubt that there was a tangible benefit (eligibility to play) and 329 times a student was given "exactly" the grade required to remain eligible.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwi715LRiu7WAhWBViYKHW5-BjAQFggzMAI&url=https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1CSFaD9O-8e8HgujjBV9pn

If I'm not mistaken, the numbers in that report were judged to be incomplete...............when new totals were added there was virtually no difference in student and student athlete performance and the majority of students were not athletes.........the NCAA ruled there were no impermissible benefits

 

[CocoHusky]

If I'm not mistaken, the numbers in that report were judged to be incomplete.....when new totals were added there was virtually no difference in student and student athlete performance and the majority of students were not athletes....the NCAA ruled there were no impermissible benefits

UNC got it's own report, did not like the numbers and proceeded to get better ones? Come on what reputable academic institution would do something like that?

 

[Orangutan]

This is a really good explainer from the Ringer: North Carolina Was Always Going to Get Off in Its NCAA Investigation

 

[Orangutan]

This reminds me of the SMU scandal as detailed in the 30 for 30 "Pony Exce$$"

SMU flagrantly cheated. All their rivals cheated, too. The difference was their rivals were really good at cheating discreetly.

Team officials didn't direct UNC players to the bogus classes. They didn't need to. Advisers knew they were easy. Nothing wrong with telling someone to take an easy class!

The teams didn't tell the grader to give players certain grades. They didn't have to. She happily handed As to the athletes.

Is any of this fair or right? Of course not. But the important thing is that you can't pin it on the teams for deliberately obtaining high grades via phony classes.

It's truly the perfect crime

 

[stamfordhusky]

The NCAA - forever spineless and ineffectual. They wouldn't want to lose ground to FIFA and the IOC in the race for the worst organization in sports.

Unfortunately the NCAA bylaws give them no authority if an academic program is not designed to mostly/exclusively benefit athletes. If the courses are available to the general public, they have no authority. Hopefully the bylaws will be changed - but that is up to the members since every change in the bylaws must be approved by a majority of the members. The NCAA cannot change anything on its own.

 

[triaddukefan]

 

[triaddukefan]

 

[CocoHusky]

This reminds me of the SMU scandal as detailed in the 30 for 30 "Pony Exce$$"

SMU flagrantly cheated. All their rivals cheated, too. The difference was their rivals were really good at cheating discreetly.

Team officials didn't direct UNC players to the bogus classes. They didn't need to. Advisers knew they were easy. Nothing wrong with telling someone to take an easy class!

The teams didn't tell the grader to give players certain grades. They didn't have to. She happily handed As to the athletes.

Is any of this fair or right? Of course not. But the important thing is that you can't pin it on the teams for deliberately obtaining high grades via phony classes.

It's truly the perfect crime

I'm with you on everything except the bolded sentence.
UNC's report says: Proposing Specific Grades for Players: As explained above, there were two counselors – Reynolds and Boxill – who suggested specific grades that Crowder should give to their players.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm with you on everything except the bolded sentence.
UNC's report says: Proposing Specific Grades for Players: As explained above, there were two counselors – Reynolds and Boxill – who suggested specific grades that Crowder should give to their players.

See, I knew I would get something wrong. Although if it was done in the context of "Joe Blow needs an A to remain eligible" that still gives you plausible deniability.

Hey, I just told her what his current eligibility status was. I didn't tell her that she had to give him an A...

 

[dogged1]

This is a really good explainer from the Ringer: North Carolina Was Always Going to Get Off in Its NCAA Investigation

I 'm not sure if you agree or disagree with the article. But i read it as an extremely well written piece of apologists BS. It read as though it was written by someone in the UNC PR department. It covered all the points from the UNC perspective brilliantly while glossing over all the "lack of institutional control" that (m)any other programs would have been hit with.
What is certain is that the NCAA will never be able to hit another program with an impermissible benefit charge regarding academics, unless that institution self reports. Instead all they need do is follow the UNC blueprint of plausible deniability and delay. And cite the privilege extended to UNC if questioned on the delay.
Outside of that narrow response to the article, I am so angry at the two faced hypocrisy of the NCAA, that I have no words that adequately express it.

 

[Charliebball]

This reminds me of the SMU scandal as detailed in the 30 for 30 "Pony Exce$$"

SMU flagrantly cheated. All their rivals cheated, too. The difference was their rivals were really good at cheating discreetly.

Team officials didn't direct UNC players to the bogus classes. They didn't need to. Advisers knew they were easy. Nothing wrong with telling someone to take an easy class!

The teams didn't tell the grader to give players certain grades. They didn't have to. She happily handed As to the athletes.

Is any of this fair or right? Of course not. But the important thing is that you can't pin it on the teams for deliberately obtaining high grades via phony classes.

It's truly the perfect crime

You got it.................that's what I have been saying all along.................also nwhat Jay Bilas has been saying.........the NCAA has no legal grounds to punish UNC even if what happened there is awful............and as the article you cited said .................

"There is no conspiracy at play here between Carolina and the NCAA. This is just a convoluted mess of a case that includes inconclusive evidence and falls outside of the NCAA’s jurisdiction, and it’s been hijacked by largely uninformed people who want to see a blueblood program get destroyed. And look, I’m not saying that these people should drop their pitchforks and calm down. I’m just saying that if you insist on finding proof that the NCAA gives North Carolina basketball preferential treatment, stop talking about this academic scandal and start talking about how the referees dicked over Zach Collins and Gonzaga in the 2017 national title game because, well, that was some legitimate bullshit.

 

[Charliebball]

Unfortunately the NCAA bylaws give them no authority if an academic program is not designed to mostly/exclusively benefit athletes. If the courses are available to the general public, they have no authority. Hopefully the bylaws will be changed - but that is up to the members since every change in the bylaws must be approved by a majority of the members. The NCAA cannot change anything on its own.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Charliebball]

Triad - you're just upset because now that the coast is clear for UNC, Roy Williams can recruit some of those five star one and dones that Coach K has become so fond of.................

 

[Charliebball]

This is a really good explainer from the Ringer: North Carolina Was Always Going to Get Off in Its NCAA Investigation

that article pretty much explains it all whether those who are disappointed, angry etc, want to believe it or not...........

 

[Charliebball]

Here's SI's view on the UNC NCAA ruling

The NCAA punishing UNC would've been wrong

 

[Charliebball]

now I know I was right about this UNC thing........

 

[triaddukefan]

Triad - you're just upset because now that the coast is clear for UNC, Roy Williams can recruit some of those five star one and dones that Coach K has become so fond of.......

To be honest... Im actually not 1/4 as upset as you UCONN fans appear to be..... but you can go on and think as you wish.

 

[Orangutan]

I 'm not sure if you agree or disagree with the article. But i read it as an extremely well written piece of apologists BS. It read as though it was written by someone in the UNC PR department. It covered all the points from the UNC perspective brilliantly while glossing over all the "lack of institutional control" that (m)any other programs would have been hit with.
What is certain is that the NCAA will never be able to hit another program with an impermissible benefit charge regarding academics, unless that institution self reports. Instead all they need do is follow the UNC blueprint of plausible deniability and delay. And cite the privilege extended to UNC if questioned on the delay.
Outside of that narrow response to the article, I am so angry at the two faced hypocrisy of the NCAA, that I have no words that adequately express it.

I liked the content of the article insofar as it summarizes what the issue is and why the NCAA's decision was what it was.

I think he wrote it in such a way as to intentionally tweak those who believe UNC should have been punished, which was a little irritating.

 

[Charliebball]

To be honest... Im actually not 1/4 as upset as you UCONN fans appear to be..... but you can go on and think as you wish.

I hear you.............personally I'm not upset in the least...............this was a no brainer from the beginning.............the NCAA's power lies in it's ability to punish schools for athletic related matters.............not sure why so many don't seem to understand that.............UNC was hit with embarrassing penalties by the accrediting agency that oversees the school and went through an instiutional reorganization to hopefully prevent future issues..........recruiting was hurt badly as other schools used the potential penalties as a tool to lure players away............the irony is that UNC basketball actually won a NC with "lesser" talent that stayed in school because they couldn't recruit many of the top ranked players

 

[j66kicker]

Love this logo for your new avatar!