Ostensibly Hoops

[Jungle Rat]

Once he has little chinks he'll be hitting the bottle Mon-Wed as well.

[eCat]

in light of the rumors that UNC will skate

this article comes out

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op- ... 23382.html

[Saint]

Well, technically that's an op-ed piece but I see it as the greatest proof that UNC will skate. The N&O, which has stood as a Wolfpack Nation proxy for 5 years, realizes the inevitable is at hand and is making one last gasp effort at shaming UNC. Certainly, there has been plenty of shame to come out of it given UNC's high-handed approach all those many years but rules were never broken and no penalties will be handed down.

[eCat]

rules were never broken?

In the Wainstein report there is one of many examples of rules being broken where Boxhill told a prof to give a female basketball player a B instead of an F

its simply amazing that UNC fans, who deep down know UNC has cheated at a level above and beyond any college ever - even Miami - wants to talk about no rules being broken.

[hedge]

"Certainly, there has been plenty of shame to come out of it"

That would've been better if you had said "shame aplenty"...

[eCat]

no idea to the credibility of this but Pack Pride has a guy saying..........................

UNC charged with LOIC


UNC charged as a repeat offender in some instances


UNC failed to cooperate with many aspects of the investigation


Evidence was lost/destroyed.. various people that claimed they would cooperate and interview lawyered up. (This ties into the Wainstein report. People that interview for KW, refused to talk to the NCAA).

NCAA is charging UNC with a "wide net ". Charges and details aren't very specific.

IE... you cheated... it was a massive fraud scheme... were not going to sit here and charge you with each offense... its the totality of the crimes. (20 years+..2,000 students.. multiple sports)

UNC plans to lawyer up and fight... Bubba has already told the NCAA they aren't accepting the charges. UNC once again has no morals, no integrity... and will not accept their fate. They will drag this out even longer and try to lawyer their way out... or to a lesser penalty at the COI.

[hedge]

Not accepting one's fate can be a mark of heroism...

[eCat]

who knows if its true.

[eCat]

welp, looks like its true

its ugly from what I'm seeing on twitter.......................

Specifically, individuals in the academic administration on campus, particularly in the college of arts and sciences, did not sufficiently monitor the AFRI/AFAM and ASPSA departments or provide appropriate supervision for these academic units and their staffs. 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. Although the general student body also had access to the
anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses.

[Jungle Rat]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... violations

[10ac]

Get a rope!

[eCat]

[Owlman]

It looks like it's a bigger deal than I originally thought. LOIC along with specifically citing the years 2002 to 2009. They could vacate the UNC titles (won't that make Kentucky fans happy).

[Owlman]

It looks like it's a bigger deal than I originally thought. LOIC along with specifically citing the years 2002 to 2009. They could vacate the UNC titles (won't that make Kentucky fans happy).

What would be worse is if they made them ineligible for postseason play this season when they have potentially such a great team

[Saint]

It looks like it's a bigger deal than I originally thought. LOIC along with specifically citing the years 2002 to 2009. They could vacate the UNC titles (won't that make Kentucky fans happy).

What would be worse is if they made them ineligible for postseason play this season when they have potentially such a great team

Can't happen without the NCAA saying that players are retroactively ineligible and that was not in the LOA. So, no titles or wins vacated, no death penalty.

What could happen, as you say, is a postseason ban for next year, which could, in essence, cause a title to be vacated. That would hurt the most and it's entirely possible. But the allegations are clear that no one program (except possibly chickball) or any specific coaches are involved, which is greatly different than the Syracuse case.

Nearly all of the individuals mentioned were on the academic side and, unless the NCAA is willing to blaze a new trail, it won't get involved in a university's academic issues. In short, UNC set the bar mighty low, but there was a bar.

I don't think UNC fans should think they're out of the woods yet because there's still plenty the NCAA can do but everyone else will have to realize that no death penalty or removal of banners is forthcoming.

[eCat]

I"m sure UNC cheated for 18 years to support chick ball. I think what some UNC fans are missing here is - the NCAA establishes impermissible benefits first...*then* determines who is eligible or not. They've already stated football, mbb and wbb received impermissible benefits. I do believehowever that the NCAA postured this - with the arbitrary start of 2002 to protect the basketball team and to deliver post season bans, scholarships, etc as opposed to vacating wins.

Here is a good side by side comparison of UNC and Syracuse

1. Roy Williams is only mentioned once

2. UNC is charged with lack of institutional control

North Carolina was accused of the most serious charge the NCAA can levy on an institution, one that signifies a lack of commitment to core academic values. Syracuse was found guilty of the same.

The charge almost always comes with lost scholarships, job losses or postseason bans, so the punishment against the institution should be hefty.

3. The charges date back to only 2002.

In a report by Kenneth Wainstein that was commissioned by the school, UNC acknowledged it had academic impropriety problems dating to 1992.

The inconsistency with the NCAA's timeline isn't explained in the Notice of Allegations. The decision to start at this point seems curious.

4. The academic issues are called cases of impermissible benefits, not academic fraud

Just like at Syracuse, the NCAA worked around the fact that academic fraud is within the jurisdiction of the school and can't be governed by an athletic organization.

Instead, the NCAA is punishing UNC just like it did Syracuse, by charging the school with impermissible benefits supplied to athletes. There include advisers signing athletes up for classes, requesting classes, suggesting grades for them to receive and turning in papers.

The ACC previously backed an argument from Syracuse that the NCAA should mind its own business in academic matters, but the argument failed. Syracuse seems to have been punished as if the NCAA has academic jurisdiction. UNC should expect this same.

That includes players being ruled ineligible for receiving those benefits, an issue that resulted in vacated wins at Syracuse and seems like it should at UNC.

5. North Carolina was charged with violating 5 rules. Syracuse was found to have broken 14.

This could be an indication of a lesser punishment. It probably isn't.

Because of the timeframe, the egregiousness of the violations and the uniqueness of the case, it's impossible to know what the punishment for UNC will be and if it will fall in line with what Syracuse suffered for what seem to be much smaller violations.

While UNC committed fewer violations, they occurred more frequently, and the NCAA generally punishes by feel.

Until the punishments are handed down it will be impossible to judge whether the schools were treated equally, and Syracuse fans should continue to watch with interest due to the school's potential appeal.

6. There appear to be fewer accusations made toward the school's athletic administration

If North Carolina somehow escapes with less severe penalties than Syracuse, it will likely be because of this: Most of the accusations in the North Carolina case were made against professors and advisers within the athletic department. Wrongdoing could not be traced further up the ladder, except for a lack of oversight by officials.

Syracuse's ruling from the NCAA referenced potential involvement of the school's vice provost, athletic director, deputy athletic director and compliance officials.

7. One of the people being accused of acting unethically in the Notice of Allegations was the director of school's director of the Parr Center for Ethics.

If anything speaks to the corrupting influence sports can have at any academic institution, it is this.

[hedge]

"5. North Carolina was charged with violating 5 rules. Syracuse was found to have broken 14."

Two of the five violations we were charged with were two separate individuals (one charge for each individual) being "uncooperative" with the investigation. As the Admin guy at IC wrote (who doesn't usually take a strong position on any matter unless he feels pretty confident): "The notion of charging UNC for the lack of cooperation by Crowder and Nyang'oro seems absurd given that UNC paid millions of dollars for the Wainstein Report - a report that they cooperated with and provided detailed testimony." At any rate, it seems like those two "violations" are minor at best, at least in terms of punishing any particular athletic squad.

One of the other charges, as eCat's post mentioned, was directly and solely related to women's basketball: "Academic counselor Jan Boxill provided extra benefits by way of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements to women's basketball players from 2007-2010." Of course that doesn't make it OK, but come on, it's chick ball. They'll almost surely take a big hit, but this charge has nothing to do with anything but women's basketball.

So that's 3 out of the 5 violations that I'm not terribly concerned with. The one that could be troubling is the first one, dealing with "impermissible benefits" associated with the AfAm courses. It is on that basis (and the one to do with Boxill and women's hoops specifically) that led to the LOIC charge. It's a serious charge, but it doesn't appear to be based on anything close to the level of what was charged against Syracuse. So I don't think comparing their case to ours is particularly helpful or equivalent.

[hedge]

"If anything speaks to the corrupting influence sports can have at any academic institution, it is this."

Yeah, that and mailing money to players/recruits by FedEx. Face it, UK's deal in the late 1980's was at least this bad or worse, and they were back on top of the college hoops world within a few years. We're probably going to take some kind of hit, but I'm not worried about the state of UNC hoops long term or even mid-term. But, like UK, we'll probably suffer a couple of down years b/c of this in the very short term. I just hope it's not this year...

[eCat]

I think the timing of this shows it won't be this year. In 90 days n the school year will be started and any punishment handed out by the NCAA will address the 2016-17 season.

Clearly UNC deserves worse than this punishment but the NOA is bad enough that the NCAA could issue the death penalty if they so desired.

That isn't going to happen. At this point I think its more about finding a punishment that the masses screaming for heads on pikes in Carolina and the folks who recognize that dealing a death spiral to Carolina basketball is not good for the NCAA can both agree on. I do think the NCAA is going to be more punitive than they should be because Carolina got to their key witnesses, the whole point of reopening the investigation and shut them down. So much for the whole co-operation horseshit Carolina was preaching, btw

Personally its bullshit that they don't go back to 1992 - why they chose 2002 is anybodies guess but it clears Smith and Guthridge, even though its clear this started on their watch but I understand the sacred cow that Dean Smith is to college basketball and it would rewrite history. Just as Wooden was known to be a cheater.

I see the 2005 title as being safe, although the 2002 date does set itself up to focus on the 2005 title - but I'm guessing 3 year post season ban and loss of scholarships with nothing directly tied to Roy. But while I expect Carolina to recover, I don't see it happening under Roy. He'll probably leave dealing with a couple of 14 win seasons under his belt and fickle fans blaming him for the demise of Carolina basketball.

I would be satisfied with that although to be able to talk about vacated titles would shut up a lot of elitist UNC fans in regards to Calipari.

[hedge]

What was UK's punishment back in the early 90's? One year post-season ban?