This is just silly. People will watch CBB and watch the Dance, UNC or no UNC.
The idea that some schools are untouchable is not born out by the facts.
Kentucky has been on BB probation.
USC, OSU, and Bama have been on FB probation.
North Carolina Academic Fraud Investigation
- Status
This is just silly. People will watch CBB and watch the Dance, UNC or no UNC.
The idea that some schools are untouchable is not born out by the facts.
Kentucky has been on BB probation.
USC, OSU, and Bama have been on FB probation.
icengineer
- Southern Illinois
The bolded is the only situation where it actually meant anything real for the trajectory and recruits of the program. So, in fact, I feel that USC is the exception that proves the rule.
If you think that the NCAA is going to bring down the hammer on UNC then you're ignoring the developing reality. They practiced the AFAM scam in such a way that it does not involve direct culpability by the athletic department (that so far has been revealed). It is, therefore, not an NCAA issue. The worst that could possibly come out of this is academic probation from an accrediting body, which in reality is truly nothing at all outside of an extra evaluation or two.
UNC skips self imposed penalties...must not be such bad guys after all.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/unc-skips-self-imposed-penalties-in-response-to-ncaa-charges/ar-BBva8wZ?li=BBnba9IUNC
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more-sports/unc-skips-self-imposed-penalties-in-response-to-ncaa-charges/ar-BBva8wZ?li=BBnba9IUNC
UNC is making the same case that's been discussed on the football board re: Penn St. Yes, bad stuff going on here, but not in the NCAA's jurisdiction. And since the NCAA basically said the same thing way back when this all started, it'll be interesting to see if they try to pursue this or back down and agree that they were right in the first place. 
Joel Goodson
- ties will be resolved
UNC is making the same case that's been discussed on the football board re: Penn St. Yes, bad stuff going on here, but not in the NCAA's jurisdiction. And since the NCAA basically said the same thing way back when this all started, it'll be interesting to see if they try to pursue this or back down and agree that they were right in the first place.
If the NCAA doesn't come down hard on NC, that's all we need to know.
UNC is making the same case that's been discussed on the football board re: Penn St. Yes, bad stuff going on here, but not in the NCAA's jurisdiction. And since the NCAA basically said the same thing way back when this all started, it'll be interesting to see if they try to pursue this or back down and agree that they were right in the first place.
Whereas there was no question of the NCAA's lack of jurisdiction in the Penn State case, whether or not the athletic department was involved here is exactly what's being investigated.
IllinoisFan733
- Chicago
It's a really interesting case. North Carolina is stating that since the classes were available and taken by the general student (non-athletes) and the student-athletes weren't given special dispensation, it's none of the NCAA business since it's more a university issue. Although this could lead to accreditation issues, which is a bigger concern for the university as a whole. Dana O'Neil @ ESPN has a good write-up about it. ARTICLE
I guess the lesson is that if you are going to offer sham classes for your athletes, just make them available to everybody and give everybody the same amount of assistance to pass them. :thumb:
Joel Goodson
- ties will be resolved
This whole thing reeks to high heaven. That this sham was cooked up primarily to keep football and basketball players eligible...well, Inspector Clouseau could figure that out in a nanosecond.
IllinoisFan733
- Chicago
Dana's article discussed this, and the NCAA made a new rule to that affect: "I can't define it, but I'll know it when I see it"
Unfortunately, it's too late for this case... Looks like UNC will get a pass on this one from the NCAA. :tsk:
Raleigh paper...article is nothing new, but comments are interesting, yes UNC is popular with a lot of people, but there are just as many Duke & State fans that would just as soon never see UNC play basketball again. And who on here is Chris?
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article93255562.html
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article93255562.html
There is clear evidence of collusion between staff to fabricate grades in these classes that kept student-athletes eligible. If non-student-athletes were receiving the same benefit, this argument holds up. But I very much doubt they were. The burden should be on UNC provide evidence of a non-student-athlete receiving an artificially-high grade in one of these classes to keep their GPA above a certain threshold.
In a just world, this would be taken into consideration. In our world, it will likely be conveniently overlooked.
Yeah, I believe the argument the NCAA will try to make is that the sham classes were disproportionately filled with student athletes who were guided to these classes by members of the athletics department who knew that they were not legitimate classes. Definitely an interesting case, because in many ways the NCAA should have nothing to do with it, but from a publicity standpoint it makes them look incredibly weak if they don't act.
Yeah, that's a bit of a gray area.
Every athletic program in America, very much including Illinois, guides their players into easy classes. But to what extent do they bear a burden to identify and avoid fraudulent situations that don't originate with them? Tough question. Athletic departments aren't in a great position to make those kinds of determinations.
Last edited:
FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
I originally thought that this case was a no-brainer.
Now I see that the NCAA is not particularly inclined, nor well suited, to take action on this particular matter.
But since it keeps coming back up, it reminds me that wasn't there a threat of litigation by some athletes (McCants comes to mind?) saying that they didn't get an education in exchange for their services like they were supposed to? Anyone recall that? Is there a status on that matter?
Now I see that the NCAA is not particularly inclined, nor well suited, to take action on this particular matter.
But since it keeps coming back up, it reminds me that wasn't there a threat of litigation by some athletes (McCants comes to mind?) saying that they didn't get an education in exchange for their services like they were supposed to? Anyone recall that? Is there a status on that matter?
JFGsCoffeeMug
BU:1 Trash cans:0
- Chicago
FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
Yup, thanks. Didn't know how that had turned out, but I suppose that I'm not surprised. Thanks for linking
There was also one Rashanda McCants (sister) & another woman's basketball player. I thought it might have been dismissed as well, but not sure.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2016/04/22/406127.htm
Last edited:
Deleted member 16340
D
Guest
So, I get the defense . I don't agree with it and think it is lawyer mumbo-jumbo. I think that the question to be asked is, "in the beginning, what was the intent?" What I mean by this, is in the very first semester, we're those classes filled with only (or overwhelming majority, athletes). Were these classes that started out as athletes only classes, and then some smarty pants laywer type says, "hey, you are too exposed without regular students attending these classes. Get the boys to have some of their friends attend"
The fact of the matter is that the athletics branch, at the very least attempted to influence (and succeeded) academic staff.
The fact of the matter is that the athletics branch, at the very least attempted to influence (and succeeded) academic staff.
TeamworkOrange
- Chicago
Academic fraud which benefits the eligibility of student athletes is still academic fraud, regardless of whether or not regular students participated. Their argument is stupid and akin to letting UNC off for paying players illegally, because they also paid the same amount of regular students money for ghost payroll jobs. The NCAA has already started down this slippery slope by allowing schools to build luxury dorms for athletes as long as 50% of the residents were regular students (most likely children of donors).
Mary Willingham (whistleblower) received a $335K settlement, which probably includes a gag order, so who knows if she'll be of any use at this point? In the past there were emails showing what grade an athlete needed in the class to maintain eligibility, and I'm sure there was no discussions of this sort of thing with regular students. This clearly shows intent.
Both the NCAA & UNC drug this out as long as possible, and media outlets barely touched it. It wouldn't surprise me if this whole approach was planned behind closed doors to allow the appearance that the NCAA was doing the right thing. How convenient that it's an election year when they finally start addressing it. I would imagine that anyone running for office in North Carolina would be a little leery of upsetting UNC fans. However, if other schools start pelting them with vicious emails & phone calls threatening to not vote for them, then they may have to step into the mud and put some pressure on the NCAA.
The whole country is really fed up with certain folks getting away with breaking the rules, and this could all backfire on UNC if they don't play it correctly. The fact that they're now ignoring their own sanctions shows their true character. Win at all costs, and academic integrity for their athletes means nothing to them.
Mary Willingham (whistleblower) received a $335K settlement, which probably includes a gag order, so who knows if she'll be of any use at this point? In the past there were emails showing what grade an athlete needed in the class to maintain eligibility, and I'm sure there was no discussions of this sort of thing with regular students. This clearly shows intent.
Both the NCAA & UNC drug this out as long as possible, and media outlets barely touched it. It wouldn't surprise me if this whole approach was planned behind closed doors to allow the appearance that the NCAA was doing the right thing. How convenient that it's an election year when they finally start addressing it. I would imagine that anyone running for office in North Carolina would be a little leery of upsetting UNC fans. However, if other schools start pelting them with vicious emails & phone calls threatening to not vote for them, then they may have to step into the mud and put some pressure on the NCAA.
The whole country is really fed up with certain folks getting away with breaking the rules, and this could all backfire on UNC if they don't play it correctly. The fact that they're now ignoring their own sanctions shows their true character. Win at all costs, and academic integrity for their athletes means nothing to them.
Hearsay, but I heard murmurings that they were in fact started for the athletes, but the rest of the student body quickly caught on to the sham and figured they would enroll as well for easy A's. UNC didn't make them exclusively athlete classes though, so probably still doesn't matter. :tsk:
Once at campus it doesn't take long to find out what the "easy" classes are. I know that we had "Rocks for Jocks" at Nebraska and of course History of Jazz.
So, who knows if it was started just for players or not but either way it seems pretty clear that the players were getting major "help".
So, who knows if it was started just for players or not but either way it seems pretty clear that the players were getting major "help".
- Status