UNC publicly reveals NOA response

[Cusefan0307]

But did they smoke weed with regular students?!?!?!?!?!

Yes!

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yes!

Oh. Ok. Cool. No big.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

While it will never happen, I would love for the the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ Commission on Colleges to use the admissions in UNC's response to revoke its accreditation.

Retroactively.

 

[pfister1]

I know you guys want to see the hammer drop on UNC, but the argument they are making is fascinating.

There was no NCAA violation based on improper benefits for student-athletes because the b.s. class benefit was available to all students that cared to take them and in fact many many students availed themselves of the benefit. Although, I suspect that the 29% number (% of students taking the courses that were athletes) that was mentioned is probably a higher ratio than the percentage of students who are athletes.

Is it a "fake" class, if its offered by the University? Who in this context is to say that the course is sufficiently rigorous to warrant academic credit or not? Presumably that is for the University to decide. One would think that the University would in its own self interest require that the course work be legitimate.

The NCAA clearly doesn't and shouldn't be in the business of passing judgment on what constitutes legitimate college course work. Of course, when you test the limits as UNC has done, than maybe the NCAA needs to get into that business.

What a mess!!

 

[Hoo's That]

I know you guys want to see the hammer drop on UNC, but the argument they are making is fascinating.

There was no NCAA violation based on improper benefits for student-athletes because the b.s. class benefit was available to all students that cared to take them and in fact many many students availed themselves of the benefit. Although, I suspect that the 29% number (% of students taking the courses that were athletes) that was mentioned is probably a higher ratio than the percentage of students who are athletes.

Is it a "fake" class, if its offered by the University? Who in this context is to say that the course is sufficiently rigorous to warrant academic credit or not? Presumably that is for the University to decide. One would think that the University would in its own self interest require that the course work be legitimate.

The NCAA clearly doesn't and shouldn't be in the business of passing judgment on what constitutes legitimate college course work. Of course, when you test the limits as UNC has done, than maybe the NCAA needs to get into that business.

What a mess!!

I believe the Raleigh paper's review of the enrollment pattern showed the athletes enrolled first and then the fratty boys found out/were tipped off to how good a deal it was and started taking them, too. A goodly bunch of the fratty boys are AFAM minors, although it is doubtful they put that fact on their resumes.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I would love to see a class action to get the costs of the courses back from UNC, and perhaps the cost of attendance since the degrees have lost value if you took those classes.

 

[SBU72]

Is there a difference between taking a course, even one that requires some sort of work/attendance, and know the prof gives out nothing below a "C" in order to maintain eligibility and taking a course that does the same but has not work attached to it? I suppose that is sort of the agreement that the athletic department is taking. Then the question becomes what some are saying that since it was a "fake" course, the grades should not count and therefore what does/did that do to the athlete's eligibility. Did those kids fall below the minimum class load requirements if they all didn't count? Or did they use the grade to raise their CPA to NCAA minimums? In either case, if the answer is yes, then while the course is not the A. department responsibility, the use of ineligible players would be. Of course if the A. depart didn't KNOW they were ineligible, does that mean they are OK, Clueless, but ok. What about institutional control? Does that only apply to the A. Department, not the school in general?

 

[realorange]

If the course(s) in question are as bad as they seem, all the NCAA would have to show is someone from the Athletic Dept. encouraged players to take them.

 

[jordoo]

If the course(s) in question are as bad as they seem, all the NCAA would have to show is someone from the Athletic Dept. encouraged players to take them.

Which they did. They keep throwing out that 29% or whatever number but that was the % of athletes making up the classes. What is the percentage of say men's bball, football, women's bball that took these classes. That is the % I'd like to see. It has to be high if athletes made up 29% of the total. These are correspondence courses as well so they were likely very large.

 

[Hoo's That]

Is there a difference between taking a course, even one that requires some sort of work/attendance, and know the prof gives out nothing below a "C" in order to maintain eligibility and taking a course that does the same but has not work attached to it? I suppose that is sort of the agreement that the athletic department is taking. Then the question becomes what some are saying that since it was a "fake" course, the grades should not count and therefore what does/did that do to the athlete's eligibility. Did those kids fall below the minimum class load requirements if they all didn't count? Or did they use the grade to raise their CPA to NCAA minimums? In either case, if the answer is yes, then while the course is not the A. department responsibility, the use of ineligible players would be. Of course if the A. depart didn't KNOW they were ineligible, does that mean they are OK, Clueless, but ok. What about institutional control? Does that only apply to the A. Department, not the school in general?

It's one thing for the professor to do that and not tell anyone what he/she is doing and another thing to send an email to the athletic department academic advisors and tell them that's what you're doing. There's supposed to be a smoking gun email in which Crowder admits to the whole scheme.

What is absolutely amazing to me is how UNC-CHeat graduates are willing to wipe their butts with their diplomas by calling this an academic scandal rather than criticize what happened and voluntarily take down the banners and forfeit the wins.

 

[MSOrange]

https://www.thescore.com/ncaab/news...-see-mccants-i-ll-probably-square-up-with-him

 

[SBU72]

It's one thing for the professor to do that and not tell anyone what he/she is doing and another thing to send an email to the athletic department academic advisors and tell them that's what you're doing. There's supposed to be a smoking gun email in which Crowder admits to the whole scheme.

What is absolutely amazing to me is how UNC-CHeat graduates are willing to wipe their butts with their diplomas by calling this an academic scandal rather than criticize what happened and voluntarily take down the banners and forfeit the wins.

We all know about the profs who are easy "A"s. Every school has them and that knowledge does not need to be reveled in an e-mail. Just ask any student and he'll tell you! Heck, even some academic advisors will steer their charges towards easy courses.

 

[shantydaze]

We all know about the profs who are easy "A"s. Every school has them and that knowledge does not need to be reveled in an e-mail. Just ask any student and he'll tell you! Heck, even some academic advisors will steer their charges towards easy courses.

There is a difference between a class in which it is easy to get an A by doing some work and one in which a student gets an A for doing no to almost no work.

 

[Dave85]

If SU had UNC type course Christmas would have graduated in 2 years instead of 3!

 

[Dave85]

We all know about the profs who are easy "A"s. Every school has them and that knowledge does not need to be reveled in an e-mail. Just ask any student and he'll tell you! Heck, even some academic advisors will steer their charges towards easy courses.

There's easy and then there's not showing up at all.

 

[Dave85]

Louisville dodges a grand jury indictment.

Tom Wine the Commonwealth attorney said: "--- that while the NCAA can show there were violations, his office had to be able to show proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The attorney's office ultimately decided there wasn't enough corroborating evidence to recommend charges."

So all the NCAA has to do is show a violation? No proof beyond a reasonable doubt?!

How does that play out for UNC or us for that matter?

Anytime you have a scandal involving under-aged hookers the story is going to have legs. I'm not sure it's over yet. The feds will get involved.

 

[SBU72]

There is a difference between a class in which it is easy to get an A by doing some work and one in which a student gets an A for doing no to almost no work.

I'm really not saying that they are. And I believe that UNC is very much in the wrong. They are trying to say that some how the way I explained makes it right. If it is, then why doesn't every university have such programs, the he!! with pride in your diploma, win an NC baby! I don't care that it is suppose to be an academic issue not a A-dept issue, it's still wrong and the NCAA should come down on them. Either that or the college accrediting organization take away their accreditation and thus making their diplomas worthless, thus making their athletes unable to compete in the NCAA .

 

[Budley]

If SU had UNC type course Christmas would have graduated in 2 years instead of 3!

And Fab could have taken that course instead of having someone write a paper for him for a legitimate class, would have retained his eligibility through the tournament that we would have won.