FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
Does this mean we're national champions?
[/sarcasm]
To quote from the above, "once everyone who was alive and cared has died" . . .Yes
Does this mean we're national champions?
[/sarcasm]
The NCAA "overcharged" North Carolina in its long-standing academic fraud case, UNC athletic director Bubba Cunningham told CBS Sports in a wide-ranging conversation about the association's tactics and intentions during the investigation.
Revealing what seems to be North Carolina's defense in the case, Cunningham told CBS Sports, "Is this academic fraud? Yes, it is by a normal person's standards. But by the NCAA definition [it is not]."
The school has been charged with unethical conduct, lack of institutional control and extra benefits provided by a perpetrator of a bogus class scheme.
"They -- what we believe -- overcharged us," Cunningham said.
Cunningham said the school is worried about an overreach by the NCAA. He specifically mentioned the emotionally charged cases this decade at USC, Miami and Penn State. In each case, the NCAA was accused of -- or admitted to -- surpassing its enforcement powers.
"[Those] are the three cases that we continue to bring back, [saying], 'You're doing it again. Don't do it.'" Cunningham said.
CBS Sports
"Is this academic fraud? Yes, it is by a normal person's standards. But by the NCAA definition [it is not]."
This would be better than sanctions. Seriously, if Miss America can not fulfill her duties, THEN the runner-up shall be crowned as Miss America. Its the LAW!Does this mean we're national champions?
[/sarcasm]
Bump.
The University of No Classes
2005 - 10 of 15 UNC players majored in AFAM with the sham classes. They should have never been in the tournament as their players were academically ineligible.
2016 - NCAA failed to punish UNC in a timely manner for the decades of academic fraud they admitted to. UNC should have never been in the tournament.
Now that they won expect the NCAA to give them a slap on the wrist in the next month. Probably limiting the number of juice boxes they get per game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All I want is for that 2005 banner to come down from the Dean Dome. Does that make me petty and sour grapes and all that?
To add my 2¢ — well, maybe a little more than 2¢’s worth.
As I understand UNC’s jurisdictional argument, it is that the NCAA has no enforcement jurisdiction because students other than athletes were enrolled in the pertinent classes, making the issue “purely” one of academic fraud outside the bailiwick of the NCAA. Now, as I understand NCAA rules, a student-athlete must earn a certain number of hours during a regular term in order to retain eligibility for the upcoming term and, in addition, maintain a certain cumulative GPA. I am also of the understanding that UNC doesn’t dispute that such rules legitimately fall within the NCAA’s jurisdiction. But if UNC’s argument is to be accepted, while the NCAA may legitimately and within its jurisdiction enact such rules, it has no jurisdiction to inquire whether such benchmarks have legitimately and in fact been accomplished with respect to classes (and resulting hours and grades) also populated by non-student athletes or in such instances to enforce such rules.
Now, in what bizarro world would that contention have any merit ? Moreover, under such a scenario student-athletes could be insulated from NCAA investigation into compliance with such legitimate requirements and enforcement by the mere expedient of enrollment in classes open to the general student body. I imagine most NCAA institutions have no classes which are open only to student-athletes. Does that mean the NCAA may not investigate non-compliance with legitimate requirements in those institutions or impose sanctions ? And as is thus obvious, the argument proves too much, for NCAA investigation and enforcement of any legitimate requirement would be rendered virtually impossible by the mere expedient of not establishing courses open only to student-athletes.
Perhaps I’m not understanding either UNC’s defense or the applicable rules, but that’s how it appears to me.
Just as disturbing, this episode has, in my estimation, tarnished the entire University, up to the highest levels. (Shades of Penn State.) What began as a localized cancer has metastasized. Even though the underlying facts have essentially been admitted for some time, for the past few years UNC has steadfastly fought to evade any enforcement, advancing the lack of jurisdiction argument. And that fight has, apparently, been sanctioned and financed at all levels, including the University’s Board of Trustees. Now, I expect such from someone accused of a criminal offense. I do not expect it from an academic institution. Regardless of a perceived lack of jurisdiction, if wrongs were committed, I would expect a reputable academic institution to admit wrongdoing, dismiss those involved (and those who knew or should have known of such misdeeds) and go forward. (Witness Penn State's self-inflicted wounds.) The fact that UNC has chosen a different course says, in my view, volumes about the institution.
Like I said, I may be way off base, but that’s my 2¢.
To add my 2¢ — well, maybe a little more than 2¢’s worth.
As I understand UNC’s jurisdictional argument, it is that the NCAA has no enforcement jurisdiction because students other than athletes were enrolled in the pertinent classes, making the issue “purely” one of academic fraud outside the bailiwick of the NCAA. Now, as I understand NCAA rules, a student-athlete must earn a certain number of hours during a regular term in order to retain eligibility for the upcoming term and, in addition, maintain a certain cumulative GPA. I am also of the understanding that UNC doesn’t dispute that such rules legitimately fall within the NCAA’s jurisdiction. But if UNC’s argument is to be accepted, while the NCAA may legitimately and within its jurisdiction enact such rules, it has no jurisdiction to inquire whether such benchmarks have legitimately and in fact been accomplished with respect to classes (and resulting hours and grades) also populated by non-student athletes or in such instances to enforce such rules.
Now, in what bizarro world would that contention have any merit ? Moreover, under such a scenario student-athletes could be insulated from NCAA investigation into compliance with such legitimate requirements and enforcement by the mere expedient of enrollment in classes open to the general student body. I imagine most NCAA institutions have no classes which are open only to student-athletes. Does that mean the NCAA may not investigate non-compliance with legitimate requirements in those institutions or impose sanctions ? And as is thus obvious, the argument proves too much, for NCAA investigation and enforcement of any legitimate requirement would be rendered virtually impossible by the mere expedient of not establishing courses open only to student-athletes.
Perhaps I’m not understanding either UNC’s defense or the applicable rules, but that’s how it appears to me.
Just as disturbing, this episode has, in my estimation, tarnished the entire University, up to the highest levels. (Shades of Penn State.) What began as a localized cancer has metastasized. Even though the underlying facts have essentially been admitted for some time, for the past few years UNC has steadfastly fought to evade any enforcement, advancing the lack of jurisdiction argument. And that fight has, apparently, been sanctioned and financed at all levels, including the University’s Board of Trustees. Now, I expect such from someone accused of a criminal offense. I do not expect it from an academic institution. Regardless of a perceived lack of jurisdiction, if wrongs were committed, I would expect a reputable academic institution to admit wrongdoing, dismiss those involved (and those who knew or should have known of such misdeeds) and go forward. (Witness Penn State's self-inflicted wounds.) The fact that UNC has chosen a different course says, in my view, volumes about the institution.
Like I said, I may be way off base, but that’s my 2¢.
So their argument is that the university should lose accreditation but leave the basketball team alone? Hmmm...interesting set of priorities.
No, their argument is that it is solely an accreditation issue, and that the NCAA has no jurisdiction over accreditation questions.
UNC has already made its' peace with the appropriate accrediting agency.
So, if we give 5 random students $1M, can we therefore give the top 5 potential recruits $1M?