The Goat Pen

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

sheet

3 year ban, 1 year ban on TV and Pitino

At least you got Tubby out of it.

3 year tourny ban?

yep

at least that's how I remember it

I'll look it up

welp my bad - 3 year probation, 2 year post season ban

And Tubby!

Or was the drunk coach Cutler chased before him?

What constitutes probation? Less scholarships to offer recruits? Games not allowed on TV?

I dunno...we had Jamal Mashburn in year 3 so it couldn't have been all bad.

"I see the 2005 title as being safe"

Nothing in the Notice of Allegations cites any player as playing while ineligible. Can't see how they could take down banners without that...

I believe the thinking is among some is that after UNC responds and the NCAA has finalized their determinations on what has transpired, then they will move to determining who is ineligible.

Actually the LOIC at UNC has nearly everything to do with the academic side and not the athletic side. How the NCAA chooses to parse out punishment to athletics will have to do how it views the effects the academic misgivings had to do with athletics. There are some things that UNC is disputing so those allegations could end up changing.

I'm not sure what was classified as an impermissible benefit but I don't think the Af-Am stuff is under that umbrella. At least that's what radio host David Glenn, who was a lawyer for 17 years, said yesterday. As such, there shouldn't be issues of players deemed ineligible retroactively.

However, the NCAA could still hit UNC with some heavy penalties moving forward in terms of postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

You can't make this shit up.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketb ... -extension

Same here.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball- ... 59559.html

29 days. Better than Rodman I guess

I guess the question is, did they really have to artificially inseminate?

Saint wrote:Actually the LOIC at UNC has nearly everything to do with the academic side and not the athletic side. How the NCAA chooses to parse out punishment to athletics will have to do how it views the effects the academic misgivings had to do with athletics. There are some things that UNC is disputing so those allegations could end up changing.

I'm not sure what was classified as an impermissible benefit but I don't think the Af-Am stuff is under that umbrella. At least that's what radio host David Glenn, who was a lawyer for 17 years, said yesterday. As such, there shouldn't be issues of players deemed ineligible retroactively.

However, the NCAA could still hit UNC with some heavy penalties moving forward in terms of postseason bans and scholarship reductions.

I'd love to know what he thinks the NCAA was talking about in regards to mens basketball and impermissible benefits then.

The bottom line is the NCAA could hit UNC with whatever they want at this point. You have LOIC.

It could because it hit Penn St. in an unprecedented action. But the LOIC here isn't really about the athletic dept. Again, that might not matter.

And if the Af-Am classes are what is called an impermissible benefit to athletes, that doesn't seem to hold water since those classes were open to all students. If it's about the 12-hour independent study, that has to do with graduation, not eligibility. If ti's about advisers talking to professors about classes, I wonder what the NCAA thinks the advisors are supposed to do.

Most of the takes I've read from NC media suggest that the penalties handed down won't affect previous seasons. I guess other people in other places would be motivated to write otherwise.

they made it pretty clear in the NOA they didn't care that it was open to all students.

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.

read...grades changes and gpa boosting

its very clear in the NOA that they see the classes as impermissible benefits and that it was going on - in their eyes anyways from 2002 thru whatever the end date was - 2008? 2009?

as I said - the NCAA wrote this NOA so they had time to stick a finger in the air and see what the mood was across the country for punishment in regards to UNC. If there is outrage by the masses, I think they are going to hit them hard. If the masses indicate they will be satisfied with a post season ban and loss of scholarships, then that's what it will be.

UNC has refused to co-operate, has spent millions trying to control the PR on this and has already said they will fight the findings of the NCAA. They've done just about everything they can to piss the NCAA off and yet still, the NCAA is trying to give them a cushion.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/coll ... 33803.html

this makes it clear as mud