North Carolina Scandal Etc

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

If you are not Bethel, why did you get SO offended by a joke? Nobody else did. Look Dude, I am sorry that you are insecure about your life choices. But, my joke about selling shoes is NOWHERE near as bad as the attitude of UNC that the student athletes should be grateful for what education they did receive. They were cheated in life by people like Dean, Roy, etc and you are on here defending them for it.

If you want to defend the "lesser folks" you need to join Mary and Jay and work for real change by first admitting the errors and then seeking to fix them as they truly are instead of lying and covering up.

Wow, still refusing to back up what you said and provide a link and/or quotes. Do you always say bs and then twist in the wind, trying to deflect, obfuscate, and change the conversation? Just provide the link and/or quotes. That is all. No need to try and change the topics. Links, please.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Are you talking about those athletes who were "not on track to graduate" because they took too many independent study courses? If so, those names are indeed in the NOA, but they've been removed do to FERPA. Also, they can't remove allgegations. It would say, as I've said over and over and over and over..., something along the lines of "Player Jim Smith was ineligible to participate when he/she participated....". UNC could not completely remove this allegation if it was there. They would replace Jim Smith with XXXX and it would then read "Player XXXX was ineligible to participate when he/she participated....". Removing the allegation would be a violation of the FOI act (if I'm not mistaken). Also, by "COI" do you mean "NOA"?

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe the NCAA would have charged UNC with providing impermissible benefits to athletes without having proof that specific athletes received those benefits? The FI's they used as evidence in allegation #1 included a total of 38 email exchanges between Crowder and Boxill with Walden and Huffstetter. Allegation #2 (charges against Boxill) included 7 email exchanges between Boxill and Huffstetter. It also included the transcript of Walden's interview. The lack of institutional control charge also referenced those emails. Why would they include the emails from the academic counselor and the tutor for mbb as evidence to support these allegations if the basketball program wasn't being charged?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

You didn't answer my question. Do you believe the NCAA would have charged UNC with providing impermissible benefits to athletes without having proof that specific athletes received those benefits? The FI's they used as evidence in allegation #1 included a total of 38 email exchanges between Crowder and Boxill with Walden and Huffstetter. Allegation #2 (charges against Boxill) included 7 email exchanges between Boxill and Huffstetter. It also included the transcript of Walden's interview. The lack of institutional control charge also referenced those emails. Why would they include the emails from the academic counselor and the tutor for mbb as evidence to support these allegations if the basketball program wasn't being charged?

No, I believe the NCAA thinks some of UNC's athletic counselors provided some athletes with impermissible benefits. I think they supplied what they see as evidence for this. But, I don't see how this has anything to do with whether or not the NCAA is alleging certain players were ineligible. Also, keep in mind, those impermissible benefits are NOT because of taking the classes in the AFAM department.

Ok, maybe this is an easier question to answer. What specific allegations were made against the MBB team? Now, after you answer that question, here's two follow up questions. Does it mention anything about UNC using ineligible players? Have you ever seen a NOA that doesn't allege a school used ineligible players, yet the COI turns around and says they did during their hearing?

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

No, I believe the NCAA thinks some of UNC's athletic counselors provided some athletes with impermissible benefits. I think they supplied what they see as evidence for this. But, I don't see how this has anything to do with whether or not the NCAA is alleging certain players were ineligible. Also, keep in mind, those impermissible benefits are NOT because of taking the classes in the AFAM department.

Ok, maybe this is an easier question to answer. What specific allegations were made against the MBB team? Now, after you answer that question, here's two follow up questions. Does it mention anything about UNC using ineligible players? Have you ever seen a NOA that doesn't allege a school used ineligible players, yet the COI turns around and says they did during their hearing?

First, NOAs are not made public by the NCAA and are released at the discretion of the schools. Most never see public consumption and using the few available NOAs to make generalizations about how they are typically structured is a flawed approach.

More importantly, the NCAA doesn't have to name players because impermissible benefits with no monetary value are considered to be institutional violations and not violations by a specific player (16.01.1.1). If a player takes money, regardless of source, that is a violation by the player and they would be charged specifically. Allegations of academic fraud would also be a violation by the player and again they would be charged directly. NCAA did not allege either of those two things against UNC. They alleged impermissible academic benefits of the non-monetary value type, which are institutional violations.

Any player who receives an impermissible benefit is deemed ineligible (16.01.1) until restitution is made, if applicable. For example, paying back benefits of less than $100. Any games that the athlete participated in from the time of ineligibility until the time of restitution will be vacated. If the violation is not associated with a monetary value (i.e., cash, goods or commercial services), then student eligibility is not impacted and it is simply an institutional violation.

However, there is an exception, when the a non-monetary value benefit is impermissible academic assistance. In this case, any athlete who receives this impermissible benefit is ineligible and cannot make restitution. Instead, they have to apply for reinstatement (16.01.1.1.1). Any games they participated in prior to reinstatement must be vacated. This remains, however, technically an institutional violation and not an athlete violation.

Further, the NCAA leaves it up to the school to determine whether or not "academic fraud" occurred. If the schools says it didn't and the NCAA believes it did occur, the NCAA will apply the impermissible benefits charge. The NCAA will not charge a school with academic fraud if the school does not agree with that charge per NCAA policy. Read page 37 of the Syracuse report.

 

[Hoskins91_rivals]

Don't forget that outside of Paige, UNC is a poor outside/3 point shooting team.
They shot 35% from 3, 69% FT.

The type of team UK will put on the court next year will be the worst possible
match-up for North Carolina.

I disagree. They are the type of team we would have trouble with, having two talented true post players. We'd have to hope our offensive talent would offset the advantage they had on the interior.

 

[preacherfan]

Wow, still refusing to back up what you said and provide a link and/or quotes. Do you always say bs and then twist in the wind, trying to deflect, obfuscate, and change the conversation? Just provide the link and/or quotes. That is all. No need to try and change the topics. Links, please.

Dude, YOU are the one who went off about how hurt you were that I made a joke about Bundy and Bradley selling shoes. I just find it ironic and funny that the guy who has publicly called for Jay Smith to be disciplined, left his job to make a documentary is now selling shoes.

I don't think Bradley had a clue what he was doing all along. I have some close connections to the movie industry via family and it isn't THAT easy, cheap or simple to do this and produce quality work. BTW, the one done for Penn State was poorly done and poorly received. Yet, one of the main persons who worked on that one is working on this one? [banana]

Frankly, I find you, Bradley, Roy and Bubba to be a complete circus. Nothing you say can be taken seriously. But, it has been very entertaining, to say the least.

 

[NavyKat]

And all the UNCheat trolls just push their heads farther into the sand and sing the praises of Dean, Roy, and the Carolina Way, while agreeing that the secondary/non-revenue sports are the culprit. Stay classy UNC.

 

[Aike]

This is like talking about how smart a serial killer is because he's good at hiding the bodies.

Pretty soon it's going to catch up to him and he will be just another sick loser.

UNC doesn't look smart at all from where I'm sitting.

 

[Stenchymouse]

Well of course a top 20 university would create fake classes to make their women's basketball team more competitive!

Not only that, they'd spend millions to a PR firm to try and put a positive spin on it after it comes to light...

Oh, and after that, they'd fight tooth and nail to prevent themselves from being penalized and risk their academic integrity as well.

Lets see now?

How many women's titles do they have now, and how much money has women's basketball generated?

Damn!!

All that trouble and they haven't even been that great!

Yep, it makes total sense to me!!

 

[jarms24]

First, NOAs are not made public by the NCAA and are released at the discretion of the schools. Most never see public consumption and using the few available NOAs to make generalizations about how they are typically structured is a flawed approach.

More importantly, the NCAA doesn't have to name players because impermissible benefits with no monetary value are considered to be institutional violations and not violations by a specific player (16.01.1.1). If a player takes money, regardless of source, that is a violation by the player and they would be charged specifically. Allegations of academic fraud would also be a violation by the player and again they would be charged directly. NCAA did not allege either of those two things against UNC. They alleged impermissible academic benefits of the non-monetary value type, which are institutional violations.

Any player who receives an impermissible benefit is deemed ineligible (16.01.1) until restitution is made, if applicable. For example, paying back benefits of less than $100. Any games that the athlete participated in from the time of ineligibility until the time of restitution will be vacated. If the violation is not associated with a monetary value (i.e., cash, goods or commercial services), then student eligibility is not impacted and it is simply an institutional violation.

However, there is an exception, when the a non-monetary value benefit is impermissible academic assistance. In this case, any athlete who receives this impermissible benefit is ineligible and cannot make restitution. Instead, they have to apply for reinstatement (16.01.1.1.1). Any games they participated in prior to reinstatement must be vacated. This remains, however, technically an institutional violation and not an athlete violation.

Further, the NCAA leaves it up to the school to determine whether or not "academic fraud" occurred. If the schools says it didn't and the NCAA believes it did occur, the NCAA will apply the impermissible benefits charge. The NCAA will not charge a school with academic fraud if the school does not agree with that charge per NCAA policy. Read page 37 of the Syracuse report.

KABOOM!

And essentially that defers the ruling on eligibility to the COI, correct?

 

[UKserialkiller]

This is all being directed by the NCAA behind the scenes. They are telling what unc needs to do in order to save the basketball program. unc and NCAA are both working together in this.

 

[.S&C.]

If all comes back to mcCants IMO. The guy wasn't lying. UNC players will never show their transcripts unless they are forced to. The reason is simple, and everyone knows it. All of them are liars. This is why I have zero empathy for any of these players. They aren't victims. They are willful participants, and stand by their cheating today. Let's knock off the "victim" nonsense. These elitist athletes are far from victims.

UNC is finished guys. They will never recover from this and in the long run, that's good enough. Like I've been saying, Duke is the state's school now, and not even ESPN wants to stop that unstoppable train. What UNC fans don't realize yet is its all over for them. Field some competitive teams? Sure. Will they EVER be the same UNC again? Never. Will they ever be respected again? Never. Now that Duke has become the monster UNC tried to prevent years ago, it's going to have a massive effect on the cheater program. Their next hire will be outside the UNC family and their full demise will continue there. UNC has absolutely zero understanding on hiring unknowns. As we've seen for nearly 40years, it's not as easy as it sounds.

So continue to play courtroom spin games. Dragging this out the way they are doing is extremely bad for the program, but they know it's better than the alternative. The old UNC is dead. We can all rejoice In that fact, and their fans are left to pick up the pieces from a once proud program that their grandparents and great grandparents built, on lies.

 

[finneyswharf]

Ah shucks, folks! Nothing to see here.

 

[Lumpy 2]

No, I believe the NCAA thinks some of UNC's athletic counselors provided some athletes with impermissible benefits. I think they supplied what they see as evidence for this. But, I don't see how this has anything to do with whether or not the NCAA is alleging certain players were ineligible. Also, keep in mind, those impermissible benefits are NOT because of taking the classes in the AFAM department.

Ok, maybe this is an easier question to answer. What specific allegations were made against the MBB team? Now, after you answer that question, here's two follow up questions. Does it mention anything about UNC using ineligible players? Have you ever seen a NOA that doesn't allege a school used ineligible players, yet the COI turns around and says they did during their hearing?

Allegation #1 says athletes took AFAM classes that were listed as lecture courses but were taught as independent studies with no attendance requirements, no instruction from faculty and grades they didn't earn. Those fake classes were used to keep athletes eligible. So yes, athletes taking the fake AFAM classes are the impermissible benefits and and unless no MBB took the bogus classes the specific allegation is that they received impermissible benefits for the credits they didn't earn in those bogus classes.

To answer your other questions, yes it does mention that that UNC used ineligible players. It says they kept athletes eligible by enrolling them in the fake AFAM classes.

 

[jarms24]

Yeah, thought it was pretty obvious that the sham classes were the reason behind the impermissible benefits. [eyeroll]

 

[BigRedMachineBigBlueNation]

Where's old Tickle-Me-Elmo?

 

[moe#8]

This is all being directed by the NCAA behind the scenes. They are telling what unc needs to do in order to save the basketball program. unc and NCAA are both working together in this.

I agree. this should be the beginning of the end for the NCAA.

 

[docholiday51]

It is a disgrace that they are even allowed to participate in any NCAA event until self-punishing for decades of cheating.

As for their chances in the NCAA tournament: It is essentially the same team as last year, minus Tokoto. That team was a clear step behind the top 4-5 teams in the country.

I think in the one-and-done era experience is much less important than talent. There may not be teams as talented as UK, Duke, WIsconsin and ND were last year, but I think there are teams, including Kentucky, Duke, maybe Maryland, that have more talent than UNC-CHeats.

Amen,it is a disgrace any time they take the court,field or any other place college athletic competition takes place.

 

[JayCatz44]

Let the NCAA dig their own grave.

 

[preacherfan]

Where's old Tickle-Me-Elmo?

Selling shoes according to the other thread.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

First, NOAs are not made public by the NCAA and are released at the discretion of the schools. Most never see public consumption and using the few available NOAs to make generalizations about how they are typically structured is a flawed approach.

More importantly, the NCAA doesn't have to name players because impermissible benefits with no monetary value are considered to be institutional violations and not violations by a specific player (16.01.1.1). If a player takes money, regardless of source, that is a violation by the player and they would be charged specifically. Allegations of academic fraud would also be a violation by the player and again they would be charged directly. NCAA did not allege either of those two things against UNC. They alleged impermissible academic benefits of the non-monetary value type, which are institutional violations.

Any player who receives an impermissible benefit is deemed ineligible (16.01.1) until restitution is made, if applicable. For example, paying back benefits of less than $100. Any games that the athlete participated in from the time of ineligibility until the time of restitution will be vacated. If the violation is not associated with a monetary value (i.e., cash, goods or commercial services), then student eligibility is not impacted and it is simply an institutional violation.

However, there is an exception, when the a non-monetary value benefit is impermissible academic assistance. In this case, any athlete who receives this impermissible benefit is ineligible and cannot make restitution. Instead, they have to apply for reinstatement (16.01.1.1.1). Any games they participated in prior to reinstatement must be vacated. This remains, however, technically an institutional violation and not an athlete violation.

Further, the NCAA leaves it up to the school to determine whether or not "academic fraud" occurred. If the schools says it didn't and the NCAA believes it did occur, the NCAA will apply the impermissible benefits charge. The NCAA will not charge a school with academic fraud if the school does not agree with that charge per NCAA policy. Read page 37 of the Syracuse report.

First, thanks for the response.

Yes, I agree about extrapolating with insufficient data. However, from the few that are available you do see the same patterns regarding ineligible players, and until I see a different situation (a team that played ineligible players but their NOA did not reference any) I'll continue to remain as confident as I am now.

Regarding the rest of your post, thanks again for writing that. It was carefully thought out and interesting to read. However, I don't agree with it completely. First, in the old UNC investigation a player was deemed to have been given impermissible help on his school work. He was mentioned in the NOA. It was not a case of academic fraud, it was a case of the university (really a tutor) writing the paper for the athlete.

Also, your interpretation of the bylaw(s) surrounding impermissible benefits is not quite correct as written above. Here's what's in the handbook:

16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the student-athlete shall not be affected conditioned upon the student-athlete repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her own choice. The student-athlete, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the reciept of the impermissible benefit until the student-athlete repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the student-athlete's repayment shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility.

In particular, unlike, as you say above, the athletes are not considered ineligible from the moment they receive impermissible benefits totaling 0 dollars. In fact, unless the NCAA can put a price tag on these classes then there's no way (unless they break their own bylaws) they can rule the players ineligible.

Finally, can you provide a link to the Syracuse report...I have a hard time finding things online.

 

[jarms24]

NCAA spokesperson said academic impermissible benefits could most definitely make a student athlete ineligible. She said that the day the NOA was released and UNC* fans were celebrating. I'm on my phone so I can't link it, but I've already posted her quote for you 3 different times.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Dude, YOU are the one who went off about how hurt you were that I made a joke about Bundy and Bradley selling shoes. I just find it ironic and funny that the guy who has publicly called for Jay Smith to be disciplined, left his job to make a documentary is now selling shoes.

I don't think Bradley had a clue what he was doing all along. I have some close connections to the movie industry via family and it isn't THAT easy, cheap or simple to do this and produce quality work. BTW, the one done for Penn State was poorly done and poorly received. Yet, one of the main persons who worked on that one is working on this one? [banana]

Frankly, I find you, Bradley, Roy and Bubba to be a complete circus. Nothing you say can be taken seriously. But, it has been very entertaining, to say the least.

Wow, keep spinning and twisting and ignoring the question. We get it, you say things which are not true, get called on them, and try in vain to change the subject so you don't have to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. I don't care about your feelings towards bethel. I only care that when you say things you can back them up. You can't, because you lie. You're a troll. Please leave the board for those who actually do pay attention to what's going on.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

NCAA spokesperson said academic impermissible benefits could most definitely make a student athlete ineligible. She said that the day the NOA was released and UNC* fans were celebrating. I'm on my phone so I can't link it, but I've already posted her quote for you 3 different times.

Yes, which is why I mentioned that bit about the NCAA having to put a value on the courses in my response. As she said, it could definitely make a student ineligible and that is because...as she said...the NCAA could put monetary values on education. However, the poster I was responding to said it was automatic, which as you've just pointed out is not true.

Edit: Also, the AFAM courses were not the main reason for #1a, it was the benefits they were given with registration procedures (getting players into classes, etc.). This is precisely how the NCAA got around having to touch the AFAM classes and leave them up to SACS.

 

[jarms24]

So you don't think any of the 2005 team will be ruled ineligible? Just about all of them loaded up on bogus classes, and McCants' transcript proves it. [laughing]

Also, do you have a link for the monetary claim? I'd like to see the proof that the NCAA has to assign a monetary value before the players can be ruled ineligible. I have read where UNC** fans believe this, but I haven't seen any NCAA reps say this.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Allegation #1 says athletes took AFAM classes that were listed as lecture courses but were taught as independent studies with no attendance requirements, no instruction from faculty and grades they didn't earn. Those fake classes were used to keep athletes eligible. So yes, athletes taking the fake AFAM classes are the impermissible benefits and and unless no MBB took the bogus classes the specific allegation is that they received impermissible benefits for the credits they didn't earn in those bogus classes.

To answer your other questions, yes it does mention that that UNC used ineligible players. It says they kept athletes eligible by enrolling them in the fake AFAM classes.

Wrong. Go read the NOA again.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

So you don't think any of the 2005 team will be ruled ineligible? Just about all of them loaded up on bogus classes, and McCants' transcript proves it. [laughing]

Also, do you have a link for the monetary claim? I'd like to see the proof that the NCAA has to assign a monetary value before the players can be ruled ineligible. I have read where UNC** fans believe this, but I haven't seen any NCAA reps say this.

No, I don't think the 2005 team will vacate any games nor the championship banner. I also don't think any other teams will vacate wins or banners.

No need for a link, I copy/pasted the NCAA bylaw, it's there at the very bottom. It says, in case it's not showing up on your end:

For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility.

So, unless there's a monetary value placed on these courses then the NCAA can't touch the eligibility of those players. Now, this was brought up (most likely by the same people who you referenced) to (I think) a NCAA spokesperson, and she said that it was not outside of the NCAA reach to put monetary values on education. So, they could, say the classes were worth X amount each...but I'm going to assume (yes and I know what happens when you assume) that this would also be in the NOA, just like it would appear if a player took money.

Now, do you see why I'm confident that no wins will be vacated? We have past NOAs which allege players as being ineligible. We have past NOAs that list monetary values for extra benefits when it applies. We have UNC's NOA which doesn't list either. We have the bylaws. And most importantly, we don't have anything that contradicts this. This could be because I'm right or it could be because we just haven't see it yet. But, there is also one thing I have on my side. Most sports journalists, people who have a lot more info and connections than I do, seem to agree with me.

 

[bucsrule8872]

I disagree. They are the type of team we would have trouble with, having two talented true post players. We'd have to hope our offensive talent would offset the advantage they had on the interior.

I think Poythress has the strength to bang with Meeks and he is a savvy defender. He'll hold his own. Labissiere can stay with Johnson. Lee and Hicks, that's a push. Humphries has good size and should be able to hold his own. James is big but slow.

The question is who guards Labissiere and Poythress? Johnson probably hangs with Poythress, but Meeks can't guard Labissiere. Put Johnson on Labissiere and Meeks can't guard Poythress.

I think the match ups inside favor UK.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

First, thanks for the response.

Yes, I agree about extrapolating with insufficient data. However, from the few that are available you do see the same patterns regarding ineligible players, and until I see a different situation (a team that played ineligible players but their NOA did not reference any) I'll continue to remain as confident as I am now.

Regarding the rest of your post, thanks again for writing that. It was carefully thought out and interesting to read. However, I don't agree with it completely. First, in the old UNC investigation a player was deemed to have been given impermissible help on his school work. He was mentioned in the NOA. It was not a case of academic fraud, it was a case of the university (really a tutor) writing the paper for the athlete.

Also, your interpretation of the bylaw(s) surrounding impermissible benefits is not quite correct as written above. Here's what's in the handbook:

16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the student-athlete shall not be affected conditioned upon the student-athlete repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her own choice. The student-athlete, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the reciept of the impermissible benefit until the student-athlete repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the student-athlete's repayment shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility.

In particular, unlike, as you say above, the athletes are not considered ineligible from the moment they receive impermissible benefits totaling 0 dollars. In fact, unless the NCAA can put a price tag on these classes then there's no way (unless they break their own bylaws) they can rule the players ineligible.

Finally, can you provide a link to the Syracuse report...I have a hard time finding things online.

You're ignoring by-law 16.01.1.1.1 which provides an exception to Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits in the case of improper academic assistance. It states:

16.01.1.1.1 Application to Impermissible Academic Assistance. The restitution provisions of Bylaw 16 do not apply to an extra benefit violation in which a student-athlete receives an impermissible academic arrangement or assistance from an institutional staff member or representative of an institution's athletics interests. In such a situation, reinstatement of the involved student-athlete's eligibility for competition is required.
​

I'm not sure you understand how the hierarchy of by-laws and SOP type documents work. First you'd apply 16.01.1.

"A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."
​

At the moment of receipt, the athlete is ineligible pending resolution of subsequent by-laws. You then go to 16.01.1.1 to determine restitution. This provides a carve out for benefits of no monetary value and overrides ineligibility and assigns the violation to the institution rather than the student.

You then go to 16.01.1.1.1 to determine if the non-monetary value benefit was improper academic assistance. If it was, the violation remains tied to the institution but you now also override 16.01.1.1 with respect to athlete ineligibility. The athlete is ineligible until reinstatement proceedings are completed.

With respect to the previous NOA, the NCAA has discretion to mention a specific athlete for these violations if they so choose but are not required. Given the sheer volume of athletes involved it makes sense to handle these as a class rather than naming individuals.

Further, while 16.01.1.1.1's principles have always been in place, it was formally codified after the first UNC investigation several years ago. Part of the reason they decided to make that more formal in the by-laws was because of the UNC mess. However, the NCAA by-laws have always left the NCAA wide latitude to deal with these situations on a case by case basis. By-laws 19.9.6 and 19.9.7(l) are good examples of this.

Anyone who has written these types of documents knows that you cannot possibly foresee all possible situations and you write in ways to leave some flexibility.

 

[TUL]

Whoops.


Shocked,SHOCKED I tell you, that the NCAA has rules against schools faking an education. Who would have figured?

 

[TUL]

Cannot agree with the op any more than I do.

 

[preacherfan]

Wow, keep spinning and twisting and ignoring the question. We get it, you say things which are not true, get called on them, and try in vain to change the subject so you don't have to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. I don't care about your feelings towards bethel. I only care that when you say things you can back them up. You can't, because you lie. You're a troll. Please leave the board for those who actually do pay attention to what's going on.

[roll][banana][roll][banana]As I said, comical! The next documentary will be how to sell shoes. [banana]

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

You're ignoring by-law 16.01.1.1.1 which provides an exception to Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits in the case of improper academic assistance. It states:

16.01.1.1.1 Application to Impermissible Academic Assistance. The restitution provisions of Bylaw 16 do not apply to an extra benefit violation in which a student-athlete receives an impermissible academic arrangement or assistance from an institutional staff member or representative of an institution's athletics interests. In such a situation, reinstatement of the involved student-athlete's eligibility for competition is required.
​

I'm not sure you understand how the hierarchy of by-laws and SOP type documents work. First you'd apply 16.01.1.

"A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."
​

At the moment of receipt, the athlete is ineligible pending resolution of subsequent by-laws. You then go to 16.01.1.1 to determine restitution. This provides a carve out for benefits of no monetary value and overrides ineligibility and assigns the violation to the institution rather than the student.

You then go to 16.01.1.1.1 to determine if the non-monetary value benefit was improper academic assistance. If it was, the violation remains tied to the institution but you now also override 16.01.1.1 with respect to athlete ineligibility. The athlete is ineligible until reinstatement proceedings are completed.

With respect to the previous NOA, the NCAA has discretion to mention a specific athlete for these violations if they so choose but are not required. Given the sheer volume of athletes involved it makes sense to handle these as a class rather than naming individuals.

Further, while 16.01.1.1.1's principles have always been in place, it was formally codified after the first UNC investigation several years ago. Part of the reason they decided to make that more formal in the by-laws was because of the UNC mess. However, the NCAA by-laws have always left the NCAA wide latitude to deal with these situations on a case by case basis. By-laws 19.9.6 and 19.9.7(l) are good examples of this.

Anyone who has written these types of documents knows that you cannot possibly foresee all possible situations and you write in ways to leave some flexibility.

Thanks again for taking the time to write this up. I need to do some things now, I will respond later.

Edit: One quick question. Are they using the 2014-2015 bylaws or previous bylaws? I can't tell because the NOA doesn't mention 16.01.1.1.1 and their bylaws definitely change. I'd be willing to be that they're not using the 2014-2015 edition since the investigation started prior to 16.01.1.1.1 being adopted (1/29/15) and it's not mentioned in the NOA. This is something I need to look into, or perhaps you already know.

 

[jarms24]

@UKnCincy is bringing the heat ITT. Making it hard for cheaters everywhere to skate by on technicality.

 

[Barong23]

I pointed out a long time ago that it appeared UNC's strategy was to blame this on women's basketball.

There are two major flaws in UNC's plan:

1) Men's basketball and football had by far the most enrollments into these fraudulent classes.
2) Why on earth would UNC create this massive cheating program primarily for the benefit of non-revenue generating sports like women's basketball and soccer?

Of course UNC has the inside track and have completely rigged the system at every level of Government in their state, the court systems play along whenever their athletes land in front of them for beating a student senseless or if a booster like Fats needs a break, they have one of their own minions as the head of ESPN, and the NCAA seems like another puppet they can pull the strings on... but that is still going to be a very hard sell. That's why the penalties to the women's program(s) will be full of sound and thunder with Men's BB getting tapped in the periphery. Then the obvious round of "UNC has completed the most exhaustive review of its sporting programs in the history of the NCAA... " type nonsense/cover fire then wad all that up and try and pass it off in the media as a just outcome.

They have enough talking heads to do that, too. You can see how all of this is going to play out. That's why unless women's groups and African American groups don't do something about this obvious heinous exploitation then UNC is going to get away with it.

The "women" and "race" cards must be played or UNC Men's Basketball is going to skate.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

Thanks again for taking the time to write this up. I need to do some things now, I will respond later.

Edit: One quick question. Are they using the 2014-2015 bylaws or previous bylaws? I can't tell because the NOA doesn't mention 16.01.1.1.1 and their bylaws definitely change. I'd be willing to be that they're not using the 2014-2015 edition since the investigation started prior to 16.01.1.1.1 being adopted (1/29/15) and it's not mentioned in the NOA. This is something I need to look into, or perhaps you already know.

Correct, 16.01.1.1.1 was formally adopted in January 2015.

NCAA has leeway to adjust as they see fit on these issues when there are revisions to by-laws. Usage of prior versions of by-laws is generally limited to determining penalties. So the NCAA can evaluate against the rules as they stand now. However, if the punishments have recently gotten more severe, they have the option to apply the punishment standard in place at the time.

This is how they handled Syracuse and how they'll handle UNC. Review them against the rules now, but punish them using the standards in place at the time of violation. Suffice to say, this really only spares UNC from a Death Penalty (unless the COI determines extenuating circumstances like size and scope warrant an override of guidelines).

 

[jarms24]

They're being tried under the previous bylaws aren't they?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Correct, 16.01.1.1.1 was formally adopted in January 2015.

NCAA has leeway to adjust as they see fit on these issues when there are revisions to by-laws. Usage of prior versions of by-laws is generally limited to determining penalties. So the NCAA can evaluate against the rules as they stand now. However, if the punishments have recently gotten more severe, they have the option to apply the punishment standard in place at the time.

This is how they handled Syracuse and how they'll handle UNC. Review them against the rules now, but punish them using the standards in place at the time of violation. Suffice to say, this really only spares UNC from a Death Penalty (unless the COI determines extenuating circumstances like size and scope warrant an override of guidelines).

This is going to take much longer than I though, so you'll have to bear with me. I will respond when I can. But, just from quickly scanning your response it seems like you're saying the COI could say some/all were ineligible, not that they will based off of their bylaws. I agree with that. They could do anything. However, I'm trying to see if they're forced to by their bylaws, ignoring the what-ifs. I'm still not sure about that, although I do realize that I need to dig a little deeper into the NOA. Thanks for that! It's nice to discuss this with someone who has a clue and knows these things, rather than...

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

They're being tried under the previous bylaws aren't they?

I think kyncin is right, they're using the newer bylaws but they will use the punishments from the time the investigating started (or around then). Once he said that I suddenly remembered reading this, or something very similar to it. So, if that's the case, then 16.01.1.1.1 was/is definitely available. Now, I want to see why it's not mentioned with #1a in the NOA.

 

[MdWIldcat55]

They might have gotten away with such a scheme were it not for Rashad McCants. The video of him -- unrefuted by any real evidence that has ever been offered -- saying he made the Dean's List in 2005 without attending any classes or doing any work pretty much shuts the door on ignoring the basketball team.