Take one banner and one season, and it would absolutely be enough for me.
It also needs to be enforced, as they do with Cals wins. Which means they cannot celebrate, recognize, or or cite the 2005 championship anywhere or anytime.
I would be happy.
Can I ask... What is your connection? How do you know?
05 and 09 banners, vacate all wins from 05 thru 09, pay back all monies from that time period. That will satisfy me
I think there will be some who will only be satisfied if UNC MBB receives the "death penalty."
No UNC sport is going to receive the death penalty, but if the DP is not your only acceptable outcome...you'll be pleased.
If told you, he would have to kill you. :ear:[winking][winking]
If I were a UNC alumnus, I would definitely be concerned that my alma mater was on the brink of losing accreditation. Some things are much more important than college basketball, especially when those things have a direct effect on your future earning potential.I have many UNC grads as friends/clients and MOST of them have been very concerned about how this is going to affect potential employers' view of the UNC diploma.......many of them have already acknowledged the cheating, want the punishment, and want to get on with the rebuilding...
Do you have any thoughts/info on the chatter about the amended notice of allegations expanding to six level I violations?
I want 05, 09 banners and every game vacated from 2000 through 2009. That would be taking it easy on the cheats by letting Dean the mastermind cheater keep his banner. Naw, the Fab 5 had to vacate, what was going on at UNC was worse, vacate. UNC now has 2 NC.
Lose 2 scholarships a year for 5 years, a 1 season ban for Roy Williams, because he is a liar. 20,000,000 dollar fine to be split amongst conference foes they cheated. A 100,000 dollar donation to Pack Pride and those from RR who helped for one helluva party to be held wherever PP decides. A 1,000,000 award to Dan Kane for having the stones to stay on this despite death threats, harassment and ridicule.
Peace
i'm fighting the urge to dump all that I have. .
i'm fighting the urge to dump all that I have. However, it's not important. I do know the topic of the new/additional Level 2 violation. The new Level 2 violation won't do much to increase the NCAA penalty, but it will help open the gates for the FBI.
The six Level 1 violations will be enough to get the job done. UNC "insiders" have claimed that the new NOA would be a reduction or easier on UNC. As I've repeated...that was a big lie being produced by UNC PR. The new NOA is bigger and much worse for UNC.
can anyone give me a synopsis? I think I posted really early on this thread (like page 2 or 3) but have not read since -
anything new happening? TIA
The case was brought by McCants' sister, Rashanda.The amended Notice of Allegations has been finalized for at least a week, but has not been sent to UNC yet. Due to distrust that has grown for UNC, the NCAA chose to hold onto the NOA until after UNC made public its response to SACS. On Friday, UNC made public its SACS response. The amended NOA is much more harsh than the original NOA. It includes an additional Level 1 violation and an additional Level 2 violation (which includes a fun topic that could invite FBI).
Tomorrow, a judge is hearing arguments for potential dismissal of "McCants vs NCAA"...as in UNC 2005 champ* Rashad McCants.
I think it's a fair bet that UNC will receive the amended NOA by the end of April...and then we'll see how long UNC waits to make it public.
thanks friendThe amended Notice of Allegations has been finalized for at least a week, but has not been sent to UNC yet. Due to distrust that has grown for UNC, the NCAA chose to hold onto the NOA until after UNC made public its response to SACS. On Friday, UNC made public its SACS response. The amended NOA is much more harsh than the original NOA. It includes an additional Level 1 violation and an additional Level 2 violation (which includes a fun topic that could invite FBI).
Tomorrow, a judge is hearing arguments for potential dismissal of "McCants vs NCAA"...as in UNC 2005 champ* Rashad McCants.
I think it's a fair bet that UNC will receive the amended NOA by the end of April...and then we'll see how long UNC waits to make it public.
05 and 09 banners, vacate all wins from 05 thru 09, pay back all monies from that time period. That will satisfy me
I have been hearing for a while that some folks at the NCAA were not too happy with comments by Roy Williams and others that basketball was not involved. From what I was told by someone close to the situation, a few committee members were a bit miffed by the arrogance.
If any of that is true, it sounds like UNC has finally dug a hole for itself. I can't wait to the the new allegations!!!!
It would take the best case scenario to make you happy?
Eh, not gonna happen. Take a title and I'd be in disbelief.
If the Level 2 is the Adderall...that will leave a deep mark.The amended Notice of Allegations has been finalized for at least a week, but has not been sent to UNC yet. Due to distrust that has grown for UNC, the NCAA chose to hold onto the NOA until after UNC made public its response to SACS. On Friday, UNC made public its SACS response. The amended NOA is much more harsh than the original NOA. It includes an additional Level 1 violation and an additional Level 2 violation (which includes a fun topic that could invite FBI).
Tomorrow, a judge is hearing arguments for potential dismissal of "McCants vs NCAA"...
I think it's a fair bet that UNC will receive the amended NOA by the end of April...and then we'll see how long UNC waits to make it public.
Hello boys. Enjoy.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 6m 6 minutes ago
My friend says a secret is no longer a secret when 3 people know it. Having said that, the amended NOA is done.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 4m4 minutes ago
ANOA is completed and delivery is awaiting analysis of tomorrow McCants hearing (maybe so NCAA counsel can review results?). Coming soon.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 6m6 minutes ago
Oh, one more thing, ANOA is bigger than original. The 5 Level 1s have grown to 6. And I think (but am not certain) they spawned a Level 2
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 23h23 hours ago
UNC can use irregular and anomalous and deficient as many times as they want. But all NCAA needs is for them to use "academic fraud" 1 time
Hoping the NOA will have a violation of Bylaw 10.1 b. for DC. This is the dreaded academic fraud provision that UNC definitely does not want and is what Jennifer Willy was charged in 2011.
10.1 UNETHICAL CONDUCT Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete ora current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution; (b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit
Hello boys. Enjoy.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 6m 6 minutes ago
My friend says a secret is no longer a secret when 3 people know it. Having said that, the amended NOA is done.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 4m4 minutes ago
ANOA is completed and delivery is awaiting analysis of tomorrow McCants hearing (maybe so NCAA counsel can review results?). Coming soon.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 6m6 minutes ago
Oh, one more thing, ANOA is bigger than original. The 5 Level 1s have grown to 6. And I think (but am not certain) they spawned a Level 2
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 23h23 hours ago
UNC can use irregular and anomalous and deficient as many times as they want. But all NCAA needs is for them to use "academic fraud" 1 time
Hoping the NOA will have a violation of Bylaw 10.1 b. for DC. This is the dreaded academic fraud provision that UNC definitely does not want and is what Jennifer Willy was charged in 2011.
10.1 UNETHICAL CONDUCT Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete ora current or former institutional staff member (e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited to, the following: (a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution; (b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit
Maybe. Keep in mind though that the Committee and the NCAA are not the same thing. Anything strengthening of the NOA would be the work of the NCAA (more specifically, the enforcement staff) and not the Committee.
When you're trying to tease out who might actually actually have inside knowledge from amongst those who don't, measuring their comments against the process can help.
That being said, let's hope the committee portion is true and that the enforcement staff also serves up a strengthened NOA for them to rule on.
Exactly. This is where strict liability leads you and is why the Memphis case was so absurd.This UNC thing is so big, they have no idea how to penalize it
They have penalized schools with academic fraud for 5 years, but how the hell are they going to penalize something identified for 20 years, but we all know it's more like 30-40 years....
KSR Basketball
Add a BBN United Basketball Open Practice to a Busy Weekend for UK Sports
KSR Women's Basketball
New WNBA mock draft has Clara Strack teaming up with Caitlin Clark
KSR Football
NFL Draft Buzz Building for Lance Heard
KSR Football
Shane Beamer Pleads with South Carolina Fans Ahead of Kentucky Game