North Carolina Academic Fraud Investigation
- Status
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
There are two issues here. The accreditation issue (which was swept under the rug by SACS). The other issue is whether North Carolina violated NCAA rules regarding student athletes. I would have to think the NCAA does have some jurisdiction there. If they choose not to do anything about this, they are green-lighting this sort of behavior for every other school. The choice the NCAA has to make here is whether money is more important than integrity. And I think we all know where the NCAA stands when that is the choice.
We couldn't, but I can think of a few schools that could.
I don’t believe it’s cut and dried that the NCAA has no jurisdiction. After all, doesn’t that depend upon whether the member institutions intended to and did confer such jurisdiction upon the NCAA by joining the NCAA ? I assume those institutions are free to confer such authority, particularly with regard to NCAA sanctioned and sponsored events. What precludes that ? And doesn’t the historical practice (the NCAA disqualifying student-athletes from participating in such events for non-compliance with such rules) indicate that the member institutions did indeed intend to confer and have acquiesced in the exercise of such authority ?
Apart from actual historical practice, if the member institutions conferred jurisdiction upon the NCAA to establish academic criteria (credits and grades) establishing athletic eligibility for NCAA sanctioned events, doesn’t that of necessity confer jurisdiction to determine whether such criteria have been satisfied ? It would be an anomaly, wouldn’t it, to conclude that the member institutions conferred authority upon the NCAA to adopt rules establishing such criteria (a point that seems not to be contested), yet deny it the authority to effectively implement and enforce such rules ? Again, what does the historical practice indicate the intent was ?
Indeed, wouldn’t it be doubly anomalous to conclude that the member institutions intended to and did confer such jurisdiction upon the NCAA vis-a-vis academic criteria (credits and grades) resulting from academic classes comprised solely of student-athletes, yet intended to deny such jurisdiction with respect to classes not limited solely to student-athletes ? Who would devise such a scheme and why ? What could conceivably be the rationale for such distinction ? Indeed, wouldn't any such distinction be irrational ?
And if this ultimately ends up in court, in addition to the NCAA what position might the majority of member institutions take vis-a-vis such authority ? Do the majority of member institutions want academic eligibility criteria for participation in NCAA sponsored and sanctioned events to be effectively unenforceable ?
Apart from actual historical practice, if the member institutions conferred jurisdiction upon the NCAA to establish academic criteria (credits and grades) establishing athletic eligibility for NCAA sanctioned events, doesn’t that of necessity confer jurisdiction to determine whether such criteria have been satisfied ? It would be an anomaly, wouldn’t it, to conclude that the member institutions conferred authority upon the NCAA to adopt rules establishing such criteria (a point that seems not to be contested), yet deny it the authority to effectively implement and enforce such rules ? Again, what does the historical practice indicate the intent was ?
Indeed, wouldn’t it be doubly anomalous to conclude that the member institutions intended to and did confer such jurisdiction upon the NCAA vis-a-vis academic criteria (credits and grades) resulting from academic classes comprised solely of student-athletes, yet intended to deny such jurisdiction with respect to classes not limited solely to student-athletes ? Who would devise such a scheme and why ? What could conceivably be the rationale for such distinction ? Indeed, wouldn't any such distinction be irrational ?
And if this ultimately ends up in court, in addition to the NCAA what position might the majority of member institutions take vis-a-vis such authority ? Do the majority of member institutions want academic eligibility criteria for participation in NCAA sponsored and sanctioned events to be effectively unenforceable ?
One additional thought. It seems to me UNC's argument conflates two entirely different concepts. Accreditation, it seems to me, is a concept applicable to institutions, not persons. (Has anyone ever experienced a student-athlete being "accredited" ?) The relevant concept for student-athletes is eligibility. I'm unclear as to how eligibility can be equated with accreditation.
It is important to recognize (and I think you do), that the NCAA has no authority at all over the accreditation issue. If SACS screws up, the NCAA has no power to review that screwup.
The NCAA certainly does have authority to determine if a school is violating NCAA rules. The question is: what rules are they violating? Can you point to a rule that says if a school gives all of its students the opportunity to earn a degree without undergoing anything in the way of academic rigor, i.e., it offers an endless smorgasbord of "Easy A" courses, then just which NCAA rule is it violating?
The current NCAA Constitution is here: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D117.pdf.
I think this is the bedrock provision from which all other obligations spring:
1.3.2 Obligations of Member Institutions. [*] Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility
and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the infractions process of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation. (Revised: 7/31/14)
"Eligibility" looks like the only possible obligation. It is covered in Article 14 of the NCAA Constitution. These are the basic relevant portions:
14.01.2 Academic Status. To be eligible to represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition, a student-athlete shall be enrolled in at least a minimum full-time program of studies, be in good academic standing and maintain progress toward a baccalaureate or equivalent degree. (Revised: 5/29/08)
14.01.2.1 Good Academic Standing. To be eligible to represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition, a student-athlete shall be in good academic standing as determined by the academic authorities who determine the meaning of such phrases for all students of the institution, subject to controlling legislation of the conference(s) or similar association of which the institution is a member. (Revised: 5/29/08)
I read this to say that good academic standing is determined by the academic authorities and not by the NCAA. More simply, athletes must play by the same academic rules as all other students.
Look, I do not think this is open and shut and I do not like what UNC has done. But they do have a very real point: The NCAA was never designed to deal with a problem like this.
Isn't that pretty simple? If you pass the requisite number of accredited courses, then you are eligible.
Deleted member 16340
D
Guest
So,, what we are saying is that the NCAA can evaluate and make eligibility decisions on HS curricula but not college curricula?
whovous — But who determines that eligibility ? SACS ? Doesn’t SACS solely accredit member institutions on an institution-wide basis ? Has SACS ever determined the athletic eligibility of student-athletes ? Or the eligibility of member institutions to engage in athletic events ? Moreover, has it ever opined or ruled on the eligibility of student-athletes to participate in NCAA sanctioned events ? And if so, how did SACS acquire such jurisdiction over NCAA sponsored and sanctioned events ? (And would such jurisdiction be regional, like SACS, or national, like the NCAA ?) And surely, any such criteria must be set forth in written rules; where, exactly, is the SACS handbook containing such rules ?
Again, it seems to me we’re mixing jurisdictional apples and oranges. We’re talking about actual delineations of jurisdictional spheres, not merely dictionary definitions or semantic legerdemain. In essence, UNC’s contention seems to me to imply that the NCAA’s assertion of jurisdiction in the present instance somehow invades the legitimate, exclusive province of SACS. But how, exactly, is that the case ?
Again, it seems to me we’re mixing jurisdictional apples and oranges. We’re talking about actual delineations of jurisdictional spheres, not merely dictionary definitions or semantic legerdemain. In essence, UNC’s contention seems to me to imply that the NCAA’s assertion of jurisdiction in the present instance somehow invades the legitimate, exclusive province of SACS. But how, exactly, is that the case ?
icengineer
- Southern Illinois
This discussion is pointless. The NCAA has already demonstrated their unwillingness to make the correct ruling on this issue and enforce the the appropriate punishment.
Well, that is certainly part of it. The NCAA Constitution has recently been amended to include highly detailed provisions concerning HS curricula. By contrast, when it comes to college curricula and student eligibility, you won't find much more than this:
14.01.2.1 Good Academic Standing. To be eligible to represent an institution in intercollegiate athletics competition, a student-athlete shall be in good academic standing as determined by the academic authorities who determine the meaning of such phrases for all students of the institution, subject to controlling legislation of the conference(s) or similar association of which the institution is a member.
If and when the members of the NCAA decide to amend their Constitution to give the NCAA authority to review academic standing on a more rigorous basis, they certainly can do so. Perhaps they should. Perhaps they will. If they do, they might even manage to make those changes retroactive so that it applies to past wrongdoings and not just future ones.
But until they change their Constitution, the UNC situation will be evaluated by the rules currently in place. Under those rules, UNC has not done an awful lot wrong.
Innocent Primate - Where is the SACS handbook setting forth their accreditation rules, you ask? I haven't the foggiest idea. I do know it took me less than a minute to find a link to the NCAA Constitution. I bet your search engine of choice can lead you to SACS dox if you want them.
The members of the NCAA decide the rules of the NCAA. I've set forth the basic ones regarding eligibility above. The entire eligibility section is about thirty pages long and I've not read much more than the table of contents, but they don't seem to address the problem of university wide sham classes. They just say athletes need to play by the same rules applied to other students at the same school. If that is the standard, then UNC did nothing wrong.
Can they change those rules? Sure, if the member body so agrees. But until the rules change, the current NCAA Constitution sets forth the scope of the NCAA power in this area.
whovous — I assume, then, it comes down to your view that the NCAA rules "don't seem to address the problem of university wide sham classes". I think I've already pontificated enough on my viewpoint that such a position is not only irrelevant but nonsensical.
I.P., Rules matter. Did UNC violate any NCAA rule? If yes, specify it. If no, what can the NCAA do?
I've played pontiff long enough as well. My position is that the mere fact that what UNC did was wrong does not mean that what they did broke any NCAA rule. It is a procedural defense to a substantive complaint, but procedure matters.
I've played pontiff long enough as well. My position is that the mere fact that what UNC did was wrong does not mean that what they did broke any NCAA rule. It is a procedural defense to a substantive complaint, but procedure matters.
whovous — Right or wrong, I’ve had my say — and more than that, really. Time for me to step aside and give others a chance to express their opinions.
I think I will take a shot at this. To Innocent, the NCAA has delegated class standards to the accrediting agencies through 14.01.2 as cited by whovous. The NCAA is not going to get into the business of determining if the educational aspect of an institution is rigorous enough to be eligible to participate in NCAA athletics. So UNC is correct insofar as they are arguing that an athlete taking "extremely easy" classes that are available at the institution does not affect his/her eligibility. If, however, the classes were fraudulent, I think there certainly has to be a deeper examination of intent to determine if there was an impermissible benefit given to student-athletes. For example, were the athletes directed to these courses by school personnel, were athletes given any priority in signing up for these classes (i.e. allowed to enroll early) so that they got one of a limited number of spots in the class, were the classes all listed in the course catalogs?). I think there could be a statistical analysis relied upon as proof of an intent to avoid application of NCAA eligibility requirements. You would look at athlete AFAM majors (substantially all of the 2005 team that got a degree) and determine the statistical likelihood that athletes would be enrolled in the "fake" classes compared to the other AFAM students. If highly unlikely, this would be evidence of intent to create special impermissible academic benefits to athletes - similar methods are used in proving race, age and other discrimination claims. "Fake" or "fraudulent" would be defined as a class that the institution admits does not meet its standards (or does not meet accreditation standards), or was materially misrepresented in the course syllabus. This gets us to the point of where the question becomes what did the coaching staff and/or administration know about this, or what should they have known (i.e. institutional control).
If you take my analysis to its conclusions , it does have some problems. Take for instance the Kansas dorm situation where the basketball players live in a special dorm, that is also open to other students, so ostensibly legal. If the team members have priority, I would argue that the priority is an impermissible benefit. Maybe the NCAA needs to look into that, but this is a bit different that an eligibility issue created by sham classes.
So my bottom line is that academic rigor of courses has been delegated by the NCAA. However, I do not think the inquiry necessarily ends just because the courses were open to other students - if, under the facts, intent to provide impermissible benefits to athletes or to evade the academic eligibility requirements can be inferred, then I think the NCAA has got a case.
If you take my analysis to its conclusions , it does have some problems. Take for instance the Kansas dorm situation where the basketball players live in a special dorm, that is also open to other students, so ostensibly legal. If the team members have priority, I would argue that the priority is an impermissible benefit. Maybe the NCAA needs to look into that, but this is a bit different that an eligibility issue created by sham classes.
So my bottom line is that academic rigor of courses has been delegated by the NCAA. However, I do not think the inquiry necessarily ends just because the courses were open to other students - if, under the facts, intent to provide impermissible benefits to athletes or to evade the academic eligibility requirements can be inferred, then I think the NCAA has got a case.
alaskaillini, I like your way of working around the problem, but by the time you get to the end, I think you also point out the major problem with such an analysis.
I am pretty sure we don't have any of the real numbers needed for your type of analysis, so I am going to make some up. Let's say 90% of basketball, 50% of football, and 15% of non-revenue sport athletes take the sham AFAM classes. Let's go further and say that only 2% of non-athletes take the same courses. Have we proven anything under your standards if those are the numbers?
I don't think so. Also, 2% of the entire student body is gonna be more "students" in total than the 90/50/15 percentages add up to. If more non-athletes take the sham classes, then I don't think you've statistically proven an impermissible benefit.
Given that the NCAA has shown no sign of going after athlete dorms, where the facts are obvious and indisputable, I think it is hard to expect them to make "new law" by trying to prove impermissible benefits statistically.
Still, if they are going to go after it, I suspect your approach is the way to go.
I am pretty sure we don't have any of the real numbers needed for your type of analysis, so I am going to make some up. Let's say 90% of basketball, 50% of football, and 15% of non-revenue sport athletes take the sham AFAM classes. Let's go further and say that only 2% of non-athletes take the same courses. Have we proven anything under your standards if those are the numbers?
I don't think so. Also, 2% of the entire student body is gonna be more "students" in total than the 90/50/15 percentages add up to. If more non-athletes take the sham classes, then I don't think you've statistically proven an impermissible benefit.
Given that the NCAA has shown no sign of going after athlete dorms, where the facts are obvious and indisputable, I think it is hard to expect them to make "new law" by trying to prove impermissible benefits statistically.
Still, if they are going to go after it, I suspect your approach is the way to go.
Alaskaillini & whovous — Here is the Wainstein report prepared for UNC, which, I believe, addresses some of the points you discuss.
http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpe...-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpe...-content/uploads/2014/10/UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf
Last edited by a moderator:
And here are some numbers from the report. Bear in mind that UNC paid for this.
These paper classes were also very popular among student-athletes, and especially among those from the “revenue sports” of football and men’s basketball. Approximately 1,871 of the 3,933 total enrollments between 1999 and 2011 were student-athletes, of whom 1,189 were members of the football and men’s basketball teams. In percentage terms, that means that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes and 24.5% were football or basketball players. By comparison, approximately 4% of the Chapel Hill student body are student-athletes in any given year, and approximately 0.6% are football players.
It is common to push D-1 athletes to easy classes. I wonder if all that much more pushing was done here.
The report seems to indicate that the woman behind all of the paper classes had her own agenda; she did not do this at the behest of athletic programs. OTOH, when they came knocking, she was happy to help.
These paper classes were also very popular among student-athletes, and especially among those from the “revenue sports” of football and men’s basketball. Approximately 1,871 of the 3,933 total enrollments between 1999 and 2011 were student-athletes, of whom 1,189 were members of the football and men’s basketball teams. In percentage terms, that means that 47.6% of the paper class enrollments were student-athletes and 24.5% were football or basketball players. By comparison, approximately 4% of the Chapel Hill student body are student-athletes in any given year, and approximately 0.6% are football players.
It is common to push D-1 athletes to easy classes. I wonder if all that much more pushing was done here.
The report seems to indicate that the woman behind all of the paper classes had her own agenda; she did not do this at the behest of athletic programs. OTOH, when they came knocking, she was happy to help.
Deleted member 10676
D
Guest
http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article143811894.html
Maryland is fully integrated into the B1G it would appear.
Deleted member 10676
D
Guest
I so wanna see this happen
" ...it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." W.S.
- Status