UNC hearing / process explained

[Capt. Tuttle]

You are trying to be legalistic. However, the NCAA has "rules" to ensure "moral" behavior. Players "cannot" be paid by boosters, get jobs with boosters, get free stuff from boosters, etc.; just a sampling of the "moral" issues the NCAA guards against due to the efforts by others in the past to entice players to attend/play for said boosters' schools. Protecting a criminal is a legal issue, doing so is a moral issue, i.e. cheating, so, yes, the NCAA does have governance over the matter.

What you are really arguing is that the NCAA bylaws don't have a specific rule stating that protecting a criminal coach/coordinator is a form a cheating when the &^$% should be in jail so the PedState incident is not in their "wheelhouse". Your argument falls flat on its face because protecting a criminal is a crime and is a cheat in the legal world; therefore, it is a cheat in the civil world, too. It also carries civil penalties on top of the criminal penalties and civil litigation requires only the preponderance of the evidence (50% plus anything). What you are saying is that using child molesters for recruiting and coaching is not cheating. If the NCAA is about protecting the student athlete, how can you claim they are protecting student athletes who are being recruited and coached at camps at young ages who are the prey of the molester/coach/recruiter?

By your reasoning, why is the NCAA involved with Baylor? Furthermore, why would the NCAA investigate PedState when they knew there was no bylaw stating the exact violations occurred and knowing the issues were "not in their wheelhouse"? It appears that the NCAA was looking for an excuse to get out of the PedState mess. They will likely repeat with UNC and possibly Baylor.

The NCAA should have stuck to their guns and forced the issue, making PedState sue the NCAA over their (weak) punishment, they would not be in a predicament now with UNC and Baylor, the NCAA would look and be stronger and have more enforcement capability and credibility.

Those aren't moral issues: they are competitive balance issues.
It's really amoral that they can't receive benefits.

 

[sufandu]

Those aren't moral issues: they are competitive balance issues.
It's really amoral that they can't receive benefits.

Unless one thinks they get plenty of benefits.

 

[dan7800]

FWIW I have family with very close friends who are VERY high up in the UNC program. From the beginning, they've been confident that nothing substantial will every happen to UNC.

 

[TheCusian]

Those aren't moral issues: they are competitive balance issues.
It's really amoral that they can't receive benefits.

The argument is that they don't receive enough benefits, given the revenue they bring the university. The morality of that is tied up in things like the value of education, the value of coaching, stage, etc.

I think there is a middle ground. But made-up classes meant to circumvent the rules as they are written is a by-product of the systems failure, but UNC should still be punished for breaking the rules.

 

[HtownOrange]

Everything you mentioned in the first paragraph has to do with player eligibility with regard amateur status, it has nothing to do with morals and is much more closely related to the UNC issues than Ped St. The only difference is one is academic related the other has to do with monetary gifts to athletes. Where they are similar is that they have both been well within the NCAA wheelhouse for a long time.

The NCAA is actually treating the Baylor atrocities the same as Ped St. They are not issuing any sanctions for the same reasons. "... university leaders chose not to give the NCAA power to do so."

Here's a SI article about it.
https://www.si.com/college-football...al-assault-scandal-lawsuit-ncaa-death-penalty

I respect your opinion. No one has insinuated that the NCAA should have investigated the molestation cases, that is the purview of the State/Federal governments. Regarding the article, the NCAA did not back off the PedState fiasco until PA brought suit (as did the Paterno estate) meaning that; 1) The NCAA believed they did have authority to punish PedState, 2) there are violations of the NCAA principles, and rules, 3) They handed down punishment, 4) The NCAA handling of the PedState fiasco was a at best improper as it lacked credibility, and 5) The NCAA is afraid of powerful states/can be bought off.

The assertion that "the university leaders chose not to give the NCAA power to do so" is the writer's assertion and is not determinitive.

NCAA Article 2.4:

2.4 The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct. [*]
For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of
higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these
athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and
responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum
of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to: (Adopted: 1/9/96)

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational
mission and goals of the institution; and
(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in Constitution 2.4-(a).

This a broad principle. Can one argue that PedState complied? Recall that Sandusky was an employee, coach/coordinator, ran camps, etc., how can one argue that his P e d o p h I l I awas promoting civility in society when he terrorized kids and scarred them for life? How was JoePa rendering respect to the kids and their families? What was fair to these kids? Please do not pretend that the cover ups by the whole of the administration was done with honesty and responsibility.

The nail in the coffin is "
These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum
of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to: (Adopted: 1/9/96)

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational
mission and goals of the institution; and
(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in Constitution 2.4-(a).

It should be clear that no one with any sanity* claims that Sandusky's actions truly complied with the stated mission and goals of Penn State University. The NCAA had a basis for punishing PedState, they did so, handed down penalties and cowered when threatened with a lawsuit.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the NCAA decides to do. The academic fraud is severe and clearly violates every thing we have been discussing, but after PedState, does the NCAA have the nerve to do the right thing?



*I think the majority on this board believe almost no one of PSU lineage is sane, at least on the JoePa/Sandusky topic.

 

[HtownOrange]

Those aren't moral issues: they are competitive balance issues.
It's really amoral that they can't receive benefits.

You raise a different issue worthy of its own thread.

 

[sufandu]

I respect your opinion. No one has insinuated that the NCAA should have investigated the molestation cases, that is the purview of the State/Federal governments. Regarding the article, the NCAA did not back off the PedState fiasco until PA brought suit (as did the Paterno estate) meaning that; 1) The NCAA believed they did have authority to punish PedState, 2) there are violations of the NCAA principles, and rules, 3) They handed down punishment, 4) The NCAA handling of the PedState fiasco was a at best improper as it lacked credibility, and 5) The NCAA is afraid of powerful states/can be bought off.

The assertion that "the university leaders chose not to give the NCAA power to do so" is the writer's assertion and is not determinitive.

NCAA Article 2.4:

2.4 The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct. [*]
For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of
higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these
athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and
responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum
of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to: (Adopted: 1/9/96)

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational
mission and goals of the institution; and
(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in Constitution 2.4-(a).

This a broad principle. Can one argue that PedState complied? Recall that Sandusky was an employee, coach/coordinator, ran camps, etc., how can one argue that his P e d o p h I l I awas promoting civility in society when he terrorized kids and scarred them for life? How was JoePa rendering respect to the kids and their families? What was fair to these kids? Please do not pretend that the cover ups by the whole of the administration was done with honesty and responsibility.

The nail in the coffin is "
These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum
of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to: (Adopted: 1/9/96)

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational
mission and goals of the institution; and
(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in Constitution 2.4-(a).

It should be clear that no one with any sanity* claims that Sandusky's actions truly complied with the stated mission and goals of Penn State University. The NCAA had a basis for punishing PedState, they did so, handed down penalties and cowered when threatened with a lawsuit.

Regardless, it will be interesting to see what the NCAA decides to do. The academic fraud is severe and clearly violates every thing we have been discussing, but after PedState, does the NCAA have the nerve to do the right thing?



*I think the majority on this board believe almost no one of PSU lineage is sane, at least on the JoePa/Sandusky topic.

Don't make this about our hatred of Ped St. and the indisputable facts that JoePa and company are scum. The NCAA backed down because they knew they'd lose. Once they backed down, they set the precedent. UNC, the school this thread is about, is entirely different. If you can't see that, I don't know what else to say.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

North Carolina has opted not to issue a statement following two days in front of the NCAA Committee on Infractions. So after about 15 hours worth of discussions, both sides left Nashville with no comment. Next step is a decision from the committee about possible sanctions.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

 

[BillSU]

Looks like we wait a couple of months or more to see the NCAA’s Final ruling.

After hearing, UNC now awaits NCAA ruling in academic case

• By Aaron Beard, AP sports writer

Aug 17, 2017, 3:20 PM ET

The Associated Press

University of North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham returns after taking a break during an NCAA hearing Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2017, in Nashville, Tenn. It has taken more than two years for North Carolina to appear before an NCAA infractions committee panel since initially being charged with five top-level violations amid its long-running academic scandal. (AP Photo/Mark Zaleski) more +



North Carolina has wrapped up a two-day hearing with an NCAA infractions committee panel that will decide whether the school faces penalties tied to its multi-year academic scandal.

Now the case goes into yet another holding pattern.

School officials spent much of Wednesday in a closed-door meeting with committee members in Nashville, Tennessee. They returned Thursday morning for a second session lasting about 4? hours with the panel that will determine whether UNC faces penalties such as fines, probation or vacated wins and championships.

NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn confirmed the hearing was complete but both sides were mum afterward.

Osburn didn't comment further because the panel must deliberate before issuing a ruling, which typically comes weeks to months after a hearing. UNC athletics spokesman Steve Kirschner said the school wouldn't have any comments about the hearing either.

Getting through the hearing process was a major step toward resolution in a delay-filled case tied to irregular courses, though there's still the potential for the case to linger beyond a ruling if UNC decides to appeal or pursue legal action. The school faces five top-level charges, including lack of institutional control.

The focus is independent study-style courses in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department. The courses were misidentified as lecture classes that didn't meet and required a research paper or two for typically high grades.

In a 2014 investigation, former U.S. Justice Department official Kenneth Wainstein estimated more than 3,100 students were affected between 1993 and 2011, with athletes making up roughly half the enrollments.

The NCAA has said UNC used those courses to help keep athletes eligible.

The case grew as an offshoot of a 2010 probe of the football program that resulted in sanctions in March 2012. The NCAA reopened an investigation in summer 2014, filed charges in a May 2015, revised them in April 2016 and then again in December.

Most notably, the NCAA originally treated some of the academic issues as improper benefits by saying athletes received access to the courses and other assistance generally unavailable to non-athletes. The NCAA removed that charge in the second Notice of Allegations (NOA), then revamped and re-inserted it into the third NOA.

UNC has challenged the NCAA's jurisdiction, saying its accreditation agency — which sanctioned the school with a year of probation — was the proper authority and that the NCAA was overreaching in what should be an academic matter .

The NCAA enforcement staff countered in a July filing: "The issues at the heart of this case are clearly the NCAA's business."