Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="dyedorange, post: 1838757, member: 3729"] 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. [/QUOTE]