Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Zelda Zonk, post: 2148075, member: 966"] I'm still waiting for that guy to say something. ANYTHING. This thread was like a ten minute joke with no punchline. It was like, "if you don't know, i'm not gonna tell you." It was like, "I know more than the Generals...but i'm not gonna tell you." So, what is happening here? It's a loophole by which UNC expects to escape? • The classes were available to everyone, so it's not within NCAA purview? But, then, isn't it any easy cheat, for a program to offer a thousand dollars a week to students in the Library Monitor Program, which 'employs' twenty students per semester. 15 athletes and 5 'randoms?' If the 'out' is simply that the advantages were dealt to more than just athletes, and that holds water, it's a simple matter for everyone to abuse the system in the same way. For every fifteen papers a tutor writes for a basketball player, he must write one for a non-athlete. Solved. • How can the NCAA ignore that fake classes were significantly contributory toward maintaining [B]GPAs for eligibility[/B]? And that if a kid graduated with one of them on his transcript, the graduation itself is invalid, which affects the team's [B]APR[/B]? • There is a [B]statue[sic] of limitations[/B] on violations? "They had their chance?" • How can fans rationalize institutional cheating? This isn't one or two tutors showing 'charity' to a foreign student. This is a [B]system[/B], set up to game the other system. Why is it necessary to prove that it was done exclusively for the benefit of athletes? Shouldn't the question be, what other possible benefit would there be for non-athletes? Even if you say it maintains the revenue stream (tuition) from students who might otherwise 'flunk out,' you could answer that with 'they have more than enough applicants to fill those spots' or 'the risk to the university's academic reputation would be too great versus any possible benefit for non-athletes.' For athletes, though, it's a risk some would find worth it. • If [B]recruits[/B] knew of these fake classes, it's a recruiting advantage. Another influence to the unfair competitive balance. Kinda sad, because the current NC basketball team seems like it's filled with some pretty cool young men. But, jeez, if the NCAA can do what it did to us over Fab, who we suspended ourselves, and a couple thousand dollars in YMCA money, Carolina should have the program canceled for 10 years. That will never happen to "the Microsoft" of the NCAA. I disagree with a lot of people, about vacating wins. It's a reasonable penalty (when applied appropriately). Does nothing to change the fact that fans and the schools enjoyed those wins on the game days, or subsequently. It only removes them statistically. Which seems reasonable to me. You play a game with an invalid player, you don't deserve to be able to take credit for that win. But, i personally don't care about 'milestones' like that. JB's 1000 is a bit meaningless. How many Colgates and Fairfields are in there? Other coaching stats are more important. Whatever. re: Carolina, if they are found 'guilty,' absolutely games should be stricken from the record books. Absolutely. But, what does that all mean? If actual championships (conference or NCAA) are deleted, that would be significant. If season win totals are retroactively altered, who really cares except for people who use those numbers to justify 'coaching acumen?' What's Roy's total? I doubt anyone knows offhand. If it were a round number like 1000, it would be more important? I think people are able to see that he has multiple championships, and is taking teams to consecutive finals. Those are the criteria that people judge. Penalizing win stats may or may not be a deterrent — probably not, but even if you think docking a win total is silly (because "we were there/we saw it") it would be sillier to ignore that one team had a documented unfair competitive advantage. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?