UNC receives a new notice of allegations

[cuserulesall]

North Carolina Academic Fraud Case Takes Another Interesting Turn

Can SU sue the ncaa now ? I don't see why not .

 

[realorange]

I loved this part of the article. Oh Lord

"---UNC argued somewhat successfully several years ago that these classes also were taken by non-athletes and internal curricular and academic decisions are the purview of the university and not the NCAA. The NCAA so desperately wanted to buy that argument it actually accepted it!'---

 

[stuckinbig11]

I loved this part of the article. Oh Lord

"---UNC argued somewhat successfully several years ago that these classes also were taken by non-athletes and internal curricular and academic decisions are the purview of the university and not the NCAA. The NCAA so desperately wanted to buy that argument it actually accepted it!'---

So, all we had to do is say that someone had written a paragraph for a non-athlete, and we would have been off the hook?

 

[reedny]

Seems like the key piece of information in this case, referenced in the McCants story, is the idea that athletes were "steered" into these sham courses. If that can be proved, UNC could still claim that the courses were available to all students (their apparent ace in the hole), but they couldn't claim that athletes, specifically, didn't receive impermissible benefits. If you can establish that athletes were being treated differently than 'normal' students, you have something. Of course, the mere fact that approx. 50% of the participants in these classes were athletes (when they represent a very small percentage of the overall student body) pretty much tells the story of what's going on here, even if it's not evidence, per se.

Agree, but I think disproportionate beneficial treatment is evidence of impermissible benefits. By percentage, far more athletes were steered into (and benefitted from) sham courses as compared to non-athletes. The motive for this, clearly, was eligibility. That's against the rules.

Unfortunately, logic and consistency no longer characterize the enforcement process. So who knows what they'll do.

 

[RF2044]

Agree, but I think disproportionate beneficial treatment is evidence of impermissible benefits. By percentage, far more athletes were steered into (and benefitted from) sham courses as compared to non-athletes. The motive for this, clearly, was eligibility. That's against the rules.

Unfortunately, logic and consistency no longer characterize the enforcement process. So who knows what they'll do.

I completely understand the NCAA's reluctance to get involved approving the content of college courses--what NCAA figurehead Mark Emmert referred to as not being in their "wheelhouse." And he's right--that is a slippery slope that the NCAA has no business getting involved with.

But what I don't understand--at all--is how Emmert and the NCAA was so eager to turn a blind eye to the bigger issue with UNC, namely that dozens of UNC athletes had their GPAs artificially inflated by taking dummy courses, and in numerous cases these were what kept them just above minimum thresholds for eligibility to play. Which is a problem that the NCAA absolutely should be involved with.

Now, the NCAA can pretend that focusing only on the first dimension excuses them from having to investigate further, or drop the hammer on UNC. But the latter suggests malfeasance on a grand scale never before seen in collegiate athletics. And if they drop the ball on this, it will be undeniable proof of their complete and total ineffectiveness as a governing body, and clear evidence of their bias and arbitrary enforcement of the rules.

Your move, NCAA. Collegiate athletics, the sports media, and other member institutions are watching closely.

 

[RF2044]

I completely understand the NCAA's reluctance to get involved approving the content of college courses--what NCAA figurehead Mark Emmert referred to as not being in their "wheelhouse." And he's right--that is a slippery slope that the NCAA has no business getting involved with.

But what I don't understand--at all--is how Emmert and the NCAA was so eager to turn a blind eye to the bigger issue with UNC, namely that dozens of UNC athletes had their GPAs artificially inflated by taking dummy courses, and in numerous cases these were what kept them just above minimum thresholds for eligibility to play.

Now, the NCAA can pretend that focusing only on the first dimension excuses them from having to investigate further, or drop the hammer on UNC. But the latter suggests malfeasance on a grand scale never before seen in collegiate athletics. And if they drop the ball on this, it will be undeniable proof of their complete and total ineffectiveness as a governing body, and clear evidence of their bias and arbitrary enforcement of the rules.

Your move, NCAA. Collegiate athletics, the sports media, and other member institutions are watching closely.

And please note, this isn't just sour groups / bitterness on my part I'm expressing. If you do the crime, you should do the time.

The problem is, lots of schools are breaking the rules, but the NCAA seems to only go after some of them, while turning a seemingly blind eye to many others. And even worse that this situational enforcement is their propensity to drop the hammer on penny ante infractions, making an example of some schools over fairly minor stuff, while allowing others to practically get make a systematic practice of practically getting away with murder [relatively speaking, to the spirit and intent of NCAA rules].

With today's 24/7 sports media and our litigious society, such hypocrisy isn't going to fly.

 

[reedny]

I completely understand the NCAA's reluctance to get involved approving the content of college courses--what NCAA figurehead Mark Emmert referred to as not being in their "wheelhouse." And he's right--that is a slippery slope that the NCAA has no business getting involved with.

But what I don't understand--at all--is how Emmert and the NCAA was so eager to turn a blind eye to the bigger issue with UNC, namely that dozens of UNC athletes had their GPAs artificially inflated by taking dummy courses, and in numerous cases these were what kept them just above minimum thresholds for eligibility to play.

Now, the NCAA can pretend that focusing only on the first dimension excuses them from having to investigate further, or drop the hammer on UNC. But the latter suggests malfeasance on a grand scale never before seen in collegiate athletics. And if they drop the ball on this, it will be undeniable proof of their complete and total ineffectiveness as a governing body, and clear evidence of their bias and arbitrary enforcement of the rules.

Your move, NCAA. Collegiate athletics, the sports media, and other member institutions are watching closely.

I don't see how they can let UNC off the hook here. First of all, if small-scale academic cheating is a violation, mass-scale cheating must also be. Steering athletes to fake classes and artificial A's is no different in principle than adding footnotes to a player's paper to help him pass a course. It's a benefit that disproportionately boosted the GPA's of UNC athletes to keep them eligible. The NCAA doesn't have to evaluate the "quality" of the AFAM courses. All it has to do is recognize that AFAM benefitted athletes disproportionately, to keep them eligible. That's basically what the NOV states.

 

[RF2044]

I don't see how they can let UNC off the hook here. First of all, if small-scale academic cheating is a violation, mass-scale cheating must also be. Steering athletes to fake classes and artificial A's is no different in principle than adding footnotes to a player's paper to help him pass a course. It's a benefit that disproportionately boosted the GPA's of UNC athletes to keep them eligible. The NCAA doesn't have to evaluate the "quality" of the AFAM courses. All it has to do is recognize that AFAM benefitted athletes disproportionately, to keep them eligible. That's basically what the NOV states.

And that's where things get messy--which is just what the NCAA is desperate to avoid. Because if they evaluate the UNC situation with any intellectual honesty, it will quickly become apparent that UNC basketball used numerous players over a nearly two decade span who shouldn't have been eligible. What will that mean for wins, game outcomes, etc.?

Its a horrendous mess that dwarfs any previous academic fraud. In the mid-90s, the NCAA dropped the hammer on the University of Minnesota for widespread academic fraud. At the time, one of the people presiding over that case issued a scathing indictment of the U of M, criticizing that NCAA athletics had never seen cheating on such a grandiose scale.

Compared to UNC, what happened at Minnesota was small potatoes. So based upon THAT precedent, what happened at UNC should garner unbelievably harsh penalties the likes of which we may have never seen.

Instead, they're bending over backwards to sweep this under the rug. It's farcical.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

And that's amazing, b/c many BB players were kept eligible through fake class attendance. Some have even sued the school (link below). If the NCAA ignores mass scale impermissible benefits, they had no business prosecuting micro-scale benefits at SU or any other school. Gutless and arbitrary.

Former UNC football player sues university

I just read this article. I think just maybe that supposedly so very clever UNC lawyer(s) who got the NCAA to roll over so easily has revealed himself to be Wile E. Coyote, or Wile E's equally clueless sister, depending.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

I went back and forth with Mike DeCourcey today on twitter arguing that te media had given UNC a pass compared to Syracuse. He clearly didn't agree and got defensive.

Then he's a clueless and biased moron

 

[cuseattle]

I hope they get at least a slap on the wrist. One year of probation. Something.

 

[cuseattle]

Straight up. They have great lawyers.

You get what you pay for.

 

[realorange]

Notice that their KC lawyers are the same as ours.

 

[reedny]

Notice that their KC lawyers are the same as ours.

I think you're right. Wonder why the academic wheelhouse argument didn't fly for us, but is apparently flying for UNC.

 

[RF2044]

I think you're right. Wonder why the academic wheelhouse argument didn't fly for us, but is apparently flying for UNC.

Because the NCAA wasn't going to walk away from an eight year investigation without dropping the hammer, and our academic violation stuff with Fab was the worst of the minor infractions they could hang our penalties' hat on.

Even the marijuana stuff was merely an internal compliance infraction. Shame on us for implementing a stupid, non-required policy and then not having the smarts to follow the simple protocol we ourselves had documented. But at the end of the day, not a huge deal. The YMCA stuff was circumstantial, and not really associated with the university directly. For better or for worse, the Fab stuff gave the NCAA the string that they could pull, and use it as a connective thread with which to bind all of our minor, unrelated infractions into a bigger "lack of institutional control" bundle.

Given how harsh our penalties were, precedent would suggest that UNC should get exponentially more severe sanctions. But they won't, because the NCAA is arbitrary and capricious, and a toothless lion that only situationally chooses who to go after. This inherent hypocrisy has exposed them as the governance frauds that they are, and tightens the noose around their necks from the standpoint of public perception of their legitimacy. Letting UNC skate might be what's "best" for the NCAA, but it isn't going to fly amongst member institutions or the sports media. We just have to sit back and watch the NCAA slit their own throats and watch the mayhem ensue.

And in the big scheme of things, having UNC get off easy is probably what's best for SU, in terms of getting our sanctions summarily reduced [long term]. Its just too bad that we were made an example of-- our penalties certainly did NOT fit our crimes -- and had to take such a negative PR hit.

 

[Cusefan0307]

So it's safe to say we are celebrating JAB's 1000th win on ESPN this winter...

 

[JoeySimz]

So it's safe to say we are celebrating JAB's 1000th win on ESPN this winter...

Yes. What is he currently at right now? 989. So 11 wins later. I hope that's a home game is on national tv with 35000 "1000" signs.

 

[cuseattle]

Yes. What is he currently at right now? 989. So 11 wins later. I hope that's a home game is on national tv with 35000 "1000" signs.

That would be awesome.

 

[Newhouser]

I think you're right. Wonder why the academic wheelhouse argument didn't fly for us, but is apparently flying for UNC.

We aren't UNC and JB isn't Dean Smith in the eyes of the NCAA.

 

[sutomcat]

Yes. What is he currently at right now? 989. So 11 wins later. I hope that's a home game is on national tv with 35000 "1000" signs.

Something is going to be done for 1000. It might not be supported directly by SU, might be some third party friends of JB and Juli who are involved, but there will be recognition at the game.

If SU starts the season 11-0, win 1000 would be against Eastern Michigan. I never wish for losses but it wouldn't be a awful thing if SU lost once in the first 11 games. The next game after EMU is against St John's in the Dome. They are one of SU's oldest rivals, one of the most storied programs in the East and beating them would be a very fitting and appropriate way for JB to join the 1000 club.

If it didn't happen then, Cornell is the next opponent. SU has beaten Cornell 90 times, more than any other opponent except Colgate. That wouldn't be a bad opponent to get the win against either.