Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="reedny, post: 1749783, member: 1423"] It's a good article, but a bit glib. What we really have here is the beginning of a complete travesty. Whether or not a coach or AD employee was directly involved, clearly UNC sports teams gained an advantage through the AFAM scam. It shouldn't matter that the fake classes were available to non-athletes, because they were accessed disproportionately by student-athletes to maintain eligibility. This includes the mens BB and FB teams. Woman's BB was not the only program using fake classes. The second NOV therefore creates a colossal inconsistency: that it's [I]permissible[/I] [I]for a university employee[/I] to hand athletes fake grades and credits for entire courses, but [I]impermissible for an athletic department employee[/I] to provide one athlete with footnotes for a single paper. This shows the absurdity of letting UNC off the hook because the scale of the fraud was vast or because an AD employee wasn't the actual liaison. Was the corrupt "ethics" teacher not "representing the University's athletic interests" when she funneled athletes in and out of the AA program to keep them eligible? Of course she was, because being on the AD's payroll has never been a requirement for the rule against impermissible benefits. The average booster (or pimp) isn't an AD employee either. I mean, is the NCAA really saying that the ethics teacher was not cheating because she worked for the philosophy department? And what happened to the other Athletic Department personnel involved in this .. the ones who were fired? What a disaster this is. We all suspected that UNC would try to use its influence to leverage its way out of this ... and sure enough, it looks like the whitewash is underway. [/QUOTE]

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