FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
To quote from the above, "once everyone who was alive and cared has died" . . .Yes
North Carolina Academic Fraud Investigation
- Status
To quote from the above, "once everyone who was alive and cared has died" . . .Yes
Alluded to this in the recruiting thread, but UNC is basically calling the NCAA out, saying they have over stepped their bounds as they have with other recent high profile cases (PSU, Miami, etc).
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
How can you argue with a guy named "Bubba?"
FeelYourPaign
- So Cal
Wow !
So their defense is "Yeah, I did it, but it was righteous !" ?
Admittedly, a bit of an exaggeration, but seriously there is just not much shame in "you shouldn't be bothering me with this"
Amazing.
So their defense is "Yeah, I did it, but it was righteous !" ?
Admittedly, a bit of an exaggeration, but seriously there is just not much shame in "you shouldn't be bothering me with this"
Amazing.
Bubba actually said this. Wow.
PostersLastStand
- Wayne County, IL
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!
Bump.
TeamworkOrange
- Chicago
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
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
And for pizza, don't forget that terribly illegal pizza.
Hey, Luke Maye went to an 8 am class the day after hitting the shot to send UNC into the Final Four. I think that is enough to wipe all of the previous fraud away.
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
Nice summary of this farce in the USA Today that showed up during the Final Four weekend:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2017/04/02/cloud-ncaa-investigation-still-hangs-over-north-carolina/99962490/
Poor Ol' Roy done nothing wrong, boys. Sounds like we should just drop this here case.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/nancy-armour/2017/04/02/cloud-ncaa-investigation-still-hangs-over-north-carolina/99962490/
Poor Ol' Roy done nothing wrong, boys. Sounds like we should just drop this here case.
FinalFour88
- Charlotte, NC
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?
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
I would settle for UNC to impose a San Francisco Dons-style self-imposed death penalty for all sports for a minimum of forever years.
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¢.
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¢.
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
So their argument is that the university should lose accreditation but leave the basketball team alone? Hmmm...interesting set of priorities.
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
Actually, this extends much further than UNC. The accrediting agency (SACS) gave UNC the very lightest of wrist slaps for this approach to "education". Not only is a degree from North Carolina effectively a joke, but almost any southern college or university is in question as it appears that there is no credible accrediting agency behind any of these schools.
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.
whovous — I think you're right.
I take it as a given that the NCAA cannot accept UNC’s argument that oversight and enforcement power over student-athletes under these circumstances is not within the NCAA's jurisdiction. To do so would give each member institution the wherewithal to effectively strip the NCAA of enforcement power vis-a-vis academic fraud relating to athletic eligibility by the simple expedient of enrolling student-athletes only in courses open to the general student body (whether or not non-athletes enroll). And UNC must know that the NCAA must reject such position.
So where does that take us ?
I take it as a given that the NCAA cannot accept UNC’s argument that oversight and enforcement power over student-athletes under these circumstances is not within the NCAA's jurisdiction. To do so would give each member institution the wherewithal to effectively strip the NCAA of enforcement power vis-a-vis academic fraud relating to athletic eligibility by the simple expedient of enrolling student-athletes only in courses open to the general student body (whether or not non-athletes enroll). And UNC must know that the NCAA must reject such position.
So where does that take us ?
RedRocksIllini
- Morrison, CO
Definitely understand that. As I mentioned above, one of the problems here is that the accrediting agency has turned out to be a toothless tiger. SACS should have detected this and stopped it early on instead of allowing it to go on for 20 years. When it was uncovered, UNC should have been stripped of its accreditation and SACS should have been punished as well. Instead, all southern schools under SACS' jurisdiction are now at best suspect and all seemingly to protect Tarheels basketball. A degree from Duke or Texas is no better than a mail order degree from Southern California at this point because there is no real accreditation agency standing behind any of those schools.
The argument that the NCAA has no jurisdiction, as correctly pointed out by Innocent Primate, is just wild. If the NCAA allows that, then they really have no jurisdiction at all. They will have opened an enormous loophole.
- Status