Weren't UNC/NCAA results due today?
- Thread starter LionIze
- Start date
Sure, whatever. NCAA's going to come down on UNC? Nope. No advantage there, no culture issue, no lack of institutional control.... next, Baylor. Hmmm. Nothing here, either.
Please take this opportunity to remember that Penn State has a culture problem.
Now THAT'S funny!
As if the NCAA would actually punish a school for actions that involved actual athletic and /or academic infractions!
As if the NCAA would actually punish a school for actions that involved actual athletic and /or academic infractions!
8-12 weeks after today
5 major infractions are being discussed in the meetings that conclude today
UNC brought out every legal gun (including a former NCAA legal eagle) they could find for this meeting before the infractions committee. The coaches also brought their own counsel - the obvious message from UNC was 'let's rumble' in the legal jungle. While as a local I believe UNC should be penalized (and they will be) the contrast between PSU's and UNC's responses to the NCAA is truly night and day.
Agreed about the differences in responses.
As a UNC alum, I've followed this case pretty closely. I believe that UNC played ineligible players, so at a minimum they will vacate some wins.
The NCAA will have to show the the athletic staff knew (or should have known) that these classes were "fake" in order to make any of the more serious charges stick. That seems like it is going to be really, really hard for the NCAA to demonstrate (even if it is true, which I don't think it is)
According to the news out of Wilmington NC this morning, UNC appeared before the NCAA Infraction Committee yesterday
Well, in fairness, one infraction involved the raping of children. The other, easy grades. It's much easier to posture over the latter.
Which had nothing to do with NCAA (and really nothing to do with PSU athletics). But sure, however you like to frame it...
What do you mean by "athletic staff"? Would that include the academic advisers within the athletic department?
So which one of these offers a competitive advantage to the athletic program and disservice to the student-athlete (the reason for the NCAA):
- A former assistant coach showering with a boy (no rape as determined in court)
- A no-show academic program with A's passed out for little or no work and playing ineligible players
If it wasn't known by staff, it should have been...sounds like the job of an Athletic Integrity Officer. I'm sure Penn State can refer one, as it seems they have been one of the first schools in the country to have one. I've also heard they have a comprehensive report for athletic compliance that I'm sure they would provide to UNC for a discount.
I'm not "framing" anything. Simply addressing a common misconception that it PSU administration could have acted the same way as UNC based upon the infraction involved. I am not in any way saying the NCAA had jurisdiction. Is that better, honey?
The court determined that felony indecent assault occurred in that shower.
in·de·cent as·sault
inˈˌdēsnt əˈsôlt/
noun
noun: indecent assault; plural noun: indecent assaults
- sexual assault that does not involve rape
It is not the job of the athletic department to determine which academic courses are appropriate to the university. That job falls to the department chair, then the dean of the particular college, then the relevant vice president, then the president.
I agree with you that the athletic support staff should keep tabs on things like:
1) Are there courses that only athletes take? (not the case at UNC)
2) Are there courses that a disproportionate number of athletes from a given sport take? (I don't want to turn this into something it isn't but basketball/football players taking African American studies courses wouldn't raise a red flag with me. If all of sudden, all of the lacrosse players enrolled in these same courses, I might get curious)
3) Is there any evidence that outside parties (e.g. boosters) are pressuring professors to change the grades of athletes (again not the case at UNC)?
So I completely agree with you that the university failed in policing that department. That is a major academic problem (although it was limited to one department and TWO bad actors) that is completely unacceptable. The education of the athletes and non-athletes who took those courses was adversely affected.
But much like the PSU enforcement case, it doesn't fall under NCAA rules, in this case because it was an academic issue. The only NCAA rule that was likely broken relates to playing ineligible players, which again, unless the athletic staff knew that these were bogus courses will result in nothing more than some vacated wins.
PSU could have responded the same way; it was just determined that it would have been bad from a PR perspective. I'm not sure the PR could have been any worse, so I would have been fine with them trying. But hindsight and all...
And don't call me honey, sweet cheeks. ;-)
- The fact that 47.6 percent of the students enrolled in the fake classes were athletes, while only 2 percent of the student population are athletes should raise a flag.
- The logic that the fake classes being also offered to non-athletes makes it an academic scandal (and not athletic) is crap. With that logic, boosters could also pay a few non-athletes and it wouldn't be an athletic issue.
1. It would only raise a red flag if that was unusual. I can almost guarantee that at PSU there are small courses in majors that are popular with student athletes that are 40-50% athletes. 5% of the student body are varsity athletes (not 2%) and I do not have the numbers, I am willing to bet that for the sports in question (mostly basketball and football) the percentages of black students is much greater than the student body (as would also be the case at PSU). And, in general, what students are most likely to enroll in AMFAM classes?
2. This wasn't a few non-athletes. This was over half non-athletes. Your argument doesn't hold water. Furthermore, the term "fake" classes isn't really correct. They were "paper" classes which can be more rigorous than a regular class. These were not authorized to be paper classes and the evidence suggests that they were not rigorously graded.
Sorry PSU2UNC but if you do not think there was an effort to keep student-athletes eligible at UNC over the years you are wearing tarheel blue glasses. Players on BB national championship teams were in some of those classes. Banners should come down but they will not. UNC is too big of a cash cow for the NCAA due to MBB success.
- Whether it is 2% or 5% is irrelevant. Do you honestly believe no one in the athletic department (tutors on up) knew this was a simple way to keep players eligible? That it was one rouge professor doing this for the good of his school?
- " ... evidence suggests that they were not rigorously graded". Please note the paper below got an A- despite being written at the 4th grade level.
I agree that banners should come down. I have clearly stated above that I believe that ineligible players played. That can't happen.
However, in order to do more than vacate wins, the NCAA will have to show that the athletic department knew these classes were bogus, not just easy.
I took easy classes at PSU (as I'm sure many on this board did). There is nothing inherently wrong with suggesting that a student take an easy class. So if that's what the academic support staff thought they were doing, I have zero problem with it. If they knew they were bogus classes (and my position is that they did not), then that is a bigger "institutional control" type problem that the NCAA should sanction.
Jesus Christ. Do you think the world is flat too? Haven't see enough evidence yet? I have never seen a case where the NCAA should hammer a school outside of possibly SMU. Stop your rationalizations.
It's pretty amazing to me that folks on this board are doing to UNC exactly what the rest of the world advocated that the NCAA do to PSU ("burn it down", "death penalty", etc).
The media version of this story (much like the PSU story) is quite different than the truth.
It will be interesting to see if the NCAA learned its lesson from over reaching on us (PSU). My guess is that based on their reaction to Louisville, they did and nothing will happen to UNC beyond vacated wins.
Based upon percentages - athletes on campus vs non athletes, along with the 20 yrs of occurrence, the percentage of struggling athletes, that helped UNC basketball and football, you cannot simply state it was 50/50. The percentage of athletes at UNC, that needed "help" to survive academically was closer to 95. This is what makes this a HUGE academic scandal. Especially, when it occurred at a school of academic stature. VERY embarrassing. And, VERY helpful to athletes on the verge of flunking out of school.
I agree... But the NCAA is now IMO under TREMENDOUS pressure to come up with some kind of " victory" on their part... After two years of investigation... Vacating wins as will any previous NCAA penalties administered... Are not only a joke to the General Public... But it will again prove to schools not to give in too the Cartel...
Clicking ticking for the NCAA as we know it today... Some form of change will have to eventually come...
I admit I haven't followed the UNC case as closely as others here but I think it's a 2 pronged scandal.
Clearly it was an academic scandal. I know the prof was fired from UNC but what about the Dean or those who were supposed to have oversight of the department? Did they have their accreditation pulled or publicly reviewed? If there ever was a case for that it was this case.
It clearly also had an athletic component with such a high percentage of athletes from different sports being funneled to these "classes". That 'paper' (I use that term mockingly since it was all of like 9 sentences with a huge error 5 words in
) was a joke. If that was truly a paper submitted and received an A- .....good God. To me that speaks volumes on keeping athletes eligible. That's way beyond just an 'easy' class.
Wasn't there also the lady who did the original review of athletes (and was fired IIRC) that said 1 of the star basketball players couldn't read but somehow continued to pass classes and graduate? I forget the whole story there but it fit in with a "just keep them eligible" charges. IIRC that charge was disputed but the player wouldn't cooperate?? (?? Just going from memory).
That said, since UNC has lawyered up (apparently intending to fight this in court), and knowing how the NCAA depends on march madness for $1 Billion in income, I expect a few minor punishments and nothing more.
Clearly it was an academic scandal. I know the prof was fired from UNC but what about the Dean or those who were supposed to have oversight of the department? Did they have their accreditation pulled or publicly reviewed? If there ever was a case for that it was this case.
It clearly also had an athletic component with such a high percentage of athletes from different sports being funneled to these "classes". That 'paper' (I use that term mockingly since it was all of like 9 sentences with a huge error 5 words in
) was a joke. If that was truly a paper submitted and received an A- .....good God. To me that speaks volumes on keeping athletes eligible. That's way beyond just an 'easy' class. Wasn't there also the lady who did the original review of athletes (and was fired IIRC) that said 1 of the star basketball players couldn't read but somehow continued to pass classes and graduate? I forget the whole story there but it fit in with a "just keep them eligible" charges. IIRC that charge was disputed but the player wouldn't cooperate?? (?? Just going from memory).
That said, since UNC has lawyered up (apparently intending to fight this in court), and knowing how the NCAA depends on march madness for $1 Billion in income, I expect a few minor punishments and nothing more.
There was a Powerpoint presentation emailed to an associate athletics director, director of the academic support program for student-athletes, and physically shown to the football coaching staff (at the least) telling them that the classes the athletes had been taking to remain eligible would no longer exist due to Crowder retiring.
Professor's signatures were forged in order to change grades for student-athletes
The former Director of the Parr Center for Ethics resigned before she was fired for telling Crowder what grades to give recycled papers so students could remain eligible
At least 9 people were fired, resigned, or disciplined because of this mess
Transcripts show entry level freshman were taking and getting A's in 400 level courses.
Do you really believe this was limited to 1 department and 2 "rogue" individuals?
It's pretty amazing to me that you are trying to apply what happened at PSU to what happened at UNC. Stop it.
Agreed. UNC is a big cog in the NCAA tournament and generates a lot of advertising and gate revenue. The NCAA isn't going to do anything drastic that significantly interrupts the flow of money.in a venture it controls.
There is no doubt that UNC used these classes to keep their athletes eligible for decades. This was a well thought out plan by the athletic department in conjunction with the academic departments. Vacated wins, national championships removed will be the light part of the sanctions. The big question is how many scholarships will be taken away and for how many years.
UNC is making the legal argument that the NCAA has no jurisdiction. Whether you agree with UNC or not (I do not fwiw), they are making their argument. In our situation, we did what exactly? Went on a media tour to destroy the university's brand, hired a fake judge, and asked for punishment from the NCAA.
