I'd like to make a joke about UNC's academics

Facts:
- all classes actually existed.
- all classes required actual work to get a grade (typically a 10-20 page research paper).
- there have been no allegations that academic support staff wrote papers for student athletes (well, other than unsupported claims by bipolar goofball Rashad McCants).
- all classes were listed in the course catalog, and were available to athletes and non-athletes alike.
- more non-athletes took the "paper classes" than athletes.
- athletic dept personnel asked questions about the propriety of the classes and were told by the academic dean charged with oversight that professors are allowed broad latitude to teach courses however they see fit (IOW- mind your own business).
- my son (non-athlete) took one of the "paper classes" several years ago in summer school, wrote an original twenty-page research paper, and got a good grade; he did not feel that the experience of doing so detracted from his academic preparedness in any way.

It would be easy to overlook these facts if your understanding is based primarily on the sensationalized (and often outright fabricated) media narrative about what happened at UNC. I'm quite proud of the education that student athletes receive at UNC, though I'm certainly under no illusions that there aren't a good number of very talented athletes there (as elsewhere) who are under-prepared for their academic work, and are more prone to cut corners to maintain eligibility for the $$revenue$$ sports.

charlotteobserver2662

Team Captain [481]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 777

Joined: 7/19/10

tarheel tiger eaither steals money from Clemson

Dec 1, 2015, 4:28 PM

by surfing the net all day looking for threads to jump in and defend his beloved tarholes, or he works for Edelman or Inside Carolina (the scout site that supposedly doesn't have any affiliation with the athletic department so that they can interview recruits but really that's a sham.)

Every time a thread starts about UNCheat, hes there immediately (during normal business hours.) And yet he claims to be a Clemson University employee.

Here's what we know about UNC's scandal as fact (btw tarholetiger you can get back to work now, no one actually cares about what you write in an attempt to blindly defend UNC)

The purpose of this post is to try and present information that is factual and verified. While there may be other information that can be safely deemed as “known facts”, much of it has not been made public – so that info will be omitted. (Or, if pieces are added for clarification purposes, then it will be denoted as such.)

It seems like every few weeks new thoughts of doubt and negativity (regarding UNC’s impending penalties) crop up. People start to say that they think UNC will escape without punishment… that the men’s basketball team won’t get hit at all… and so on. Essentially, they buy into the PR message that UNC has PAID MILLIONS FOR and spread throughout the media --- but which happens to also be a message that is factually incorrect.

This post will attempt to show why that message is incorrect, and hopefully stop the pointless, defeatist thoughts. (on this board, at least)

Perhaps it can educate others along the way, as well – including members of the national media who have been, for whatever reason, lax to do proper research on the topic.

There are multiple factors that all play into one conclusion: UNC is going to be handed down some very weighty sanctions at some point in the near future, and in multiple sports – with men’s basketball being one of the sports at the center.

When the NCAA delivered its Notice of Allegations to the school the document included five Level I infractions, including the NCAA’s most serious accusation, Lack of Institutional Control. This is important for various reasons (which will be detailed in the “loss of scholarship” discussion, below).

Argument/complaint:

“It has been mentioned in various media outlets that ‘UNC basketball was not accused of anything in the NOA’.”

Basically, that statement is a lie. Or, more specifically, it represents misinformation and/or laziness that is a direct result of UNC’s paid PR endeavors. The professional media/TV representatives who repeat that erroneous statement are displaying a LACK of proper research and fundamental reading skills, and are doing a disservice to their profession.

So what is the truth?

The fifth Level I accusation in the NOA clearly states:

“The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, MEN’S BASKETBALL, and women's basketball.”

Argument/complaint:

“Some talking heads have also said/written that ‘Roy Williams was not named in the NOA’.”

Again, this is a PR talking point.

No, Williams wasn’t named (amongst the five official infractions) – but Wayne Walden, his academic advisor of several decades and spanning two different schools, is widely represented in the multitude of supporting-evidence-emails. And Williams, like many other coaches who have been hit by NCAA sanctions over the past two years, “should have known” what was going on in his program. This is a stance long maintained by the NCAA in such cases.

And none of the talking heads who have said that (paraphrased) “Roy Williams wasn’t in the NOA” have no idea as to the contents of the dozens of personal interviews that the NCAA conducted – because UNC redacted all of those interviews before publicly releasing the NOA.

Question:

“Will men’s basketball suffer any repercussions once sanctions are handed down?”

Their PR message has been “no”. In the kindest way of putting it, they are being willfully ignorant as to the facts.

As mentioned earlier, men’s basketball is clearly listed as being a beneficiary of impermissible benefits for nearly a full decade. Based on historical, current, and supplementary information, there is no way the men’s basketball program will escape sanctions.

Question:

“Okay, so what sanctions might men’s basketball face?”

Vacated wins.

NCAA bylaws are very clear on this matter. Once a player is deemed (retroactively) ineligible then any game in which he/she participated is retroactively forfeited by the school.

The NOA covers the years of 2002 through 2011. The NCAA will use a very simple and non-arbitrary process: determine which players received impermissible benefits, and what semesters were affected. Cross-reference that information with those players’ athletic participations. Using that data, any games in which an ineligible player participated will be forfeited.

Again, this is not an opinion process; this is not a jury-decision where back-and-forth discussion will have to take place. It is clearly outlined in the NCAA’s bylaws, and has been followed in virtually every NCAA infractions case over the past decade.

UNC men’s basketball (among several other sports) will end up vacating dozens of wins between the years of 2002 and 2011 – which includes the Championship years of 2005 and 2009.

Erroneous argument:

“The NCAA spared Syracuse’s 2003 National Championship – so they will somehow find a way to let UNC skate during 2005 and 2009, and allow UNC to keep their two titles, as well.”

This is simply incorrect logic due to a lack of facts, and here is why:

Syracuse’s stated years of infractions (based on the NOA that the NCAA gave that school) did not cover the year 2003; it began with 2004.

Both of UNC’s two most recent National Championships ARE covered in its NOA.

If ONE ineligible player participated during either/both of those seasons (2005 and 2009), then those games (including the National Championships, if applicable) will be forfeited.

Question:

“Will there be scholarship reductions?”

This is another case where NCAA bylaws become a valuable tool – and specifically the rules governing the Committee on Infractions.

The COI has its own rulebook, so to speak.

Section 4-16-3 of the COI bylaws states that “hearing panels shall prescribe scholarship reductions as a core penalty when a panel concludes that an institution or involved individual committed one or more Level I or Level II violations.”

UNC has been accused of not one – but five – Level I infractions. Assuming that AT LEAST one of those five infractions remains intact following UNC’s response to the NOA, then based on the NCAA/COI bylaws the offending sports will suffer scholarship losses moving forward. The amount of scholarships (and the total years of duration) will be an arbitrary decision of the specific COI panel hearing UNC’s case.

As a point of reference:

Syracuse basketball lost 12 basketball scholarships over four years.

SMU basketball lost nine basketball scholarships over three years.

Both of those schools’ overall penalties will be discussed in more detail later.

Question:

“What about fines, payback of post-season monies, etc.?”

These are arbitrary decisions and are too hard to speculate at this point. However, other cases from the past two years that are somewhat similar to the UNC case (yet much smaller in scope in terms of the weight of infractions) have included such fines.

Both Syracuse and SMU had to return monies and faced fines; that info is detailed later.

Question:

“What about suspension and/or show-cause of coaches?”

Same as above. Arbitrary, but a look at similar cases would hint that a suspension for the coaches of the affected programs is a distinct possibility.

Jim Boeheim and Larry Brown’s specific situations will be discussed in more detail later.

Question/complaint:

“Why wasn’t UNC charged with academic fraud, especially since Wainstein determined that most of those classes were fake?”

This gets into various legal aspects of the case. In short, the NCAA finds itself in the middle of several impending court cases, and it must prepare itself for those eventual litigation situations. Much has been posted about those cases, so it will not be rehashed in detail here.

But essentially: By charging UNC’s athletes with impermissible benefits (as opposed to academic fraud), the NCAA not only hopes to protect itself in future litigation, but it also makes it virtually impossible for UNC to defend/appeal against the allegations. Based on the wording of NCAA rules and bylaws, it is 100% clear that UNC provided hundreds of athletes with impermissible benefits.

Question/complaint:

“Why does the NOA only go back to 2002? The Wainstein report shows that there were fake classes well into the early/mid 1990’s, and maybe even the late 1980’s.”

Again, it comes down to what the NCAA can A.) easily prove, while B.) also sticking with impermissible benefits, as opposed to academic fraud (which they are trying to avoid using/stating).

Question:

“What effect did it have when Julius Nyan’goro and Debby Crowder refused to speak with the NCAA, which then lead to two additional Level I infractions for UNC?”

Nyan’goro and Crowder were given the opportunity to speak with the NCAA to try and refute some of the (overwhelming) evidence that points to fraud/benefits from 2002 to 2011. They chose not to. Why not? The obvious conclusion is that they could not refute it.

On the flip side, they likely had a lot of information and personal-experience stories that would have ALSO put many of the earlier years in the crosshairs of fraud: 1992 (when Nyan’goro rose to a position of prominence) through 2001, and possibly even earlier. (Crowder joined the department in 1979.)

In short, Nyan’goro/Crowder talking to the NCAA could have only hurt UNC – so there is little wonder why they did not speak. The NCAA’s enforcement staff obviously came to the same conclusion, as well, which is why those two additional Level I infractions were levied.

Question/complaint:

“What about all of the other rule-breaking that was covered in the books Tarnished Heels and Cheated?”

Yet again, it partially comes down to what the NCAA can prove in a practical and legally-affordable manner.

Cheated covers some of the pre-2001 years, and the reason for that omission from the NOA has been referenced above.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

I'd like to make a joke about UNC's academics

still #5

That's b/c student athletes aren't students at UNC*****

wrong again

Abuse reported.

can't handle the truth?

Re: can't handle the truth?

Kind of like the fact that Swofford was unCHEAT'S AD when

I didn't click any of those links because

i laughed at this one

I laugh every time you dodge my simple yes/no question

^^^is ok with cheating.

And apparently can't take a joke...***

some jokes are funny on here

Re: some jokes are funny on here

So, your stance is that UNC propped up 0 athletes

???

would you rather he asked in Swahili?***

you won't get an answer on that...When the real questions

thanks for proving

you responded without answering...shocker...Ole Mr.

Dude, UNC literally gave grades to athletes for classes that never existed.

Re: Dude, UNC literally gave grades to athletes for classes that never existed.

based on fraudulent grades. geez.***

Re: still #5

Your posts are evidence of...

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/22/us/unc-report-academic-fraud/***

you're over a year late

I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.***

Re: you're over a year late

No, he hasn't read it, but he got an A on the paper anyway***

tarheel tiger eaither steals money from Clemson

Apparently that's not required at their "university"........***

TigerBoard POTD