Some UNC Ribeye for you....

[RacerX.ksr]

I just read that. Best thing is, a lot of that information translates to the pending ul case. I'm talking about NCAA procedure. For example, when a player receives impermissible benefits, he is retroactively deemed ineligible and all games he participated in are vacated.

They are both going to burn. UNC will come back before ul though. They have history on their side.

 

[Big_Blue79]

No. Actually this latest post from Manilishi gives me even more confidence. This poster, their number one "insider", has gone from "severe sanctions definite" to know saying (maybe) scholarship reductions. I don't know about you, but to me scholarship reductions is not a severe penalty moving forward.

In one paragraph, you ignore vacated wins, unless you don't think they are "a severe penalty moving forward." In the next, you discuss them. Either Orwellian or stupid. Or both. Keep racking those billables, though!

 

[UKvisitor_rivals101449]

WoW WoW WoW WoW on the link in OP. If that poster on PP would just do a "UL's (eventual) sanctions -- information primer " I would be so grateful.

 

[RacerX.ksr]

Why wasn’t UNC charged with academic fraud, especially since Wainstein determined that most of those classes were fake?”



-- This gets into various legal aspects of the case. In short, the NCAA finds itself in the middle of several impending court cases, and it must prepare itself for those eventual litigation situations. Much has been posted about those cases, so it will not be rehashed in detail here.

But essentially: By charging UNC’s athletes with impermissible benefits (as opposed to academic fraud), the NCAA not only hopes to protect itself in future litigation, but it also makes it virtually impossible for UNC to defend/appeal against the allegations. Based on the wording of NCAA rules and bylaws, it is 100% clear that UNC provided hundreds of athletes with impermissible benefits.

 

[Federal Cat]

All I got to say about UNCheats is:uzi::bomb::boom::fire: And the banners come crashing down[roll][laughing][laughing][jumpingsmile]

 

[CoachR35]

What is sad is the fact that UNC former players, like King Rice, get coaching jobs that require a degree. A player from Duke or UK might not get the job even though that player has a legit degree that the player actually worked to earn.

Is that you Steven Steve Masiello?

 

[Canadian Cat]

I know this is a long post from the UNC State board, but it's an excellent read.

Very good reading as it seems to be very objective.

 

[TankedCat]

That article by Carter doesn't make any sense to me.

He's essentially saying that because UNC Football and Basketball aren't mentioned specifically that they will not have to vacate any games or have any suspensions

yet, Basketball players names were mentioned and redacted in the report - of course the NCAA knows who they are but they were referred to as simply "basketball player"

either he isn't connecting the dots or I am connecting too many.

and no, I'm not interested in Bobby G's interpretation of this.

 

[KMKAT]

The transcripts will tell the perfect tale on major corruption across multiple sports. The penalties have to be levied against their income producers.

The NCAA cannot ignore major sanctions, after what they've done to Syracuse and SMU, how they've penalized other teams, and what they're going to do to Southern Miss. UNC not coming forward to expedite this and to stop concealing records doesn't sound like they've been forthcoming even if the NCAA wants to present them in that manner.

 

[Scotty00]

I'm just sitting back and waiting. After reading the thread about Bam on THR and seeing how some of those dumba** people are screaming that UK cheats and pays players and they would never ever do anything wrong like that cracks me up, I'm just gonna sit back and enjoy this! Poor little Uncheatinky doesn't know what's coming lol. He honestly thinks UNCheat did no wrong! The Tarnished heels are going down and I'm just gonna sit back and smile!!!

 

[JPScott]

The Committee of Infractions meets quarterly. Supposedly their next meeting is in December. If UNC*** is on their agenda it will be several months more before things really start happening.

UNC*** admitted to more minor infractions a couple of months ago to delay the proceedings so they could try to win something before they get hit. They are playing the odds. If they get hit they can get a bowl or men's bball championship before the hit. If they don't get hit then they can soak a couple of down years and cry about being unfairly prosecuted to recruits and the media. Just how I would play this if I had the same ethics as UNC***.

I may be wrong but I thought that UNC admitting to a few more infractions has basically reset the clock.

They're now waiting for the NCAA to send them an amended NOA at which time they'll have another 90 days (or whatever it is) to respond and only after that would they be scheduled to go before the COI, which as you said meets only quarterly.

So this stunt by UNC probably delayed the whole thing a full year. Fine by me, it just drags the uncertainty out longer.

FYI wouldn't it be hilarious if in this extra time, the NCAA made good use of it and not only tacked on the minor violations UNC sacrificed in order to gain their delay, but tacked on charges related to Wheels-for-Heels, the Dental Foundation, the learning disabled scam etc.?

(I.e. Things the NCAA should have investigated on their own a long time ago rather than giving UNC carte blanche to self-investigate, while narrowing the field of focus to areas they want and avoid other sensitive areas they'd like to ignore.)

 

[BBUK_anon]

I may be wrong but I thought that UNC admitting to a few more infractions has basically reset the clock.

They're now waiting for the NCAA to send them an amended NOA at which time they'll have another 90 days (or whatever it is) to respond and only after that would they be scheduled to go before the COI, which as you said meets only quarterly.

So this stunt by UNC probably delayed the whole thing a full year. Fine by me, it just drags the uncertainty out longer.

FYI wouldn't it be hilarious if in this extra time, the NCAA made good use of it and not only tacked on the minor violations UNC sacrificed in order to gain their delay, but tacked on charges related to Wheels-for-Heels, the Dental Foundation, the learning disabled scam etc.?

(I.e. Things the NCAA should have investigated on their own a long time ago rather than giving UNC carte blanche to self-investigate, while narrowing the field of focus to areas they want and avoid other sensitive areas they'd like to ignore.)

In my simple interpretation as I have told my children many times. In the world as it is now there is a whole lot of gray and a little bit of Black, and a little bit of White.

In reality; and it will always be this way no matter what anyone else says, claims, or argues....there is; Black, and White, and a little bit of gray. (You can interpret it as Right and Wrong and a little bit of gray for those that may have a question...)

 

[carbonlib23]

actually, the infractions committee can rule on the original NOA now......they can then allow the NEW concerns to move forward as well...

Unc stonewalling could be the thing that infuriates the infractions committee the most...

 

[BBUK_anon]

actually, the infractions committee can rule on the original NOA now......they can then allow the NEW concerns to move forward as well...

Unc stonewalling could be the thing that infuriates the infractions committee the most...

Are they really infuriated? The reason I ask is that people or boards or entities that are infuriated usually act out their frustrations in some way. No matter any time-line or concern of waiting for things to play out. To date as I am aware, "Nobody dun nuttin to uncheat yet." -Dad Gummit...

 

[.S&C.]

Eh. If anything the athletes themselves are the "victims". They're the ones that were cheated out of a real education and steered towards false degrees by an institution that cared only about basketball. Their only job was to play basketball and be kept eligible.

These athlete are not totally victims. They were willing participants, and they are STILL defiant in saying they did no wrong. Their parents also knew they weren't doing the work.

I personally work with "victims" everyday. UNC cheating basketball players aren't one.

Now, if there was a player who demanded his work be done, wanted to go to real classes, and wasn't allowed, then you've got something. It that's not what happened. Instead, they poured into the no show classes, didn't do the work, and laughed all they way to the practice court.

I Have have zero sympathy. They are adults they know right from wrong and so should their parents.

 

[JPScott]

actually, the infractions committee can rule on the original NOA now......they can then allow the NEW concerns to move forward as well...

Unc stonewalling could be the thing that infuriates the infractions committee the most...

While that's what I think the NCAA COI should have done (I.e. Go ahead and rule on the existing NOA), I think you're mistaken that they can proceed now.

The reason being that they never forced UNC to go ahead and submit their response within the original 90 days.

Without a response in hand, I don't think procedurally they can go ahead with determining a punishment. Instead the ball is back in the NCAA's court to send out an amended COA.

Now if UNC tries to pull this stunt again by continuing to delay, the NCAA are at best fools and at worst co-conspirators if they don't force UNC to go ahead and respond to the original charges.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Are they really infuriated? The reason I ask is that people or boards or entities that are infuriated usually act out their frustrations in some way. No matter any time-line or concern of waiting for things to play out. To date as I am aware, "Nobody dun nuttin to uncheat yet." -Dad Gummit...

What infuriates the NCAA, especially Emmert is that they can't figure out a way to defend against the lawsuits and allow UNC to skate at the same time.

 

[Spanish Radio]

While that's what I think the NCAA COI should have done (I.e. Go ahead and rule on the existing NOA), I think you're mistaken that they can proceed now.

The reason being that they never forced UNC to go ahead and submit their response within the original 90 days.

Without a response in hand, I don't think procedurally they can go ahead with determining a punishment. Instead the ball is back in the NCAA's court to send out an amended COA.

Now if UNC tries to pull this stunt again by continuing to delay, the NCAA are at best fools and at worst co-conspirators if they don't force UNC to go ahead and respond to the original charges.

I am not sure that UNC*** has to make their response public nor the new NOA public unless someone in North Carolina files a correctly worded Freedom of Information act request. At this point I think the NCAA and UNC*** have the rest of the country in the dark thus the "if" the COI has UNC*** on their agenda in my original post.

Edit: I am no NCAA rules expert. I get bored by rules that can be interpreted a thousand different ways. Selective enforcement made me give up the effort to stay current on the rules as well.

 

[bigbluehomer]

The transcripts will tell the perfect tale on major corruption across multiple sports. The penalties have to be levied against their income producers.

Yes, they will. There's a reason that Mary Willingham has told everyone that will listen that "the truth is in the transcripts", which the NCAA most assuredly has. I don't think it is a stretch to say that there are likely many transcripts from UNC athletes that mirror Julius Peppers' outstanding academic achievements.

It is very bad to give impermissible benefits in the form of fake classes/passing grades to athletes who have shown that they can at least get some B's and C's in regular classes. But it is an entirely different magnitude of despicable to keep student athletes eligible with fake classes who have flunked about 99% of every other class they have been enrolled in.

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

In one paragraph, you ignore vacated wins, unless you don't think they are "a severe penalty moving forward." In the next, you discuss them. Either Orwellian or stupid. Or both. Keep racking those billables, though!

No, I don't think taking away wins is going to hurt UNC in the future. I'm not sure anyone would consider vacating games as punishment for the future. We all watched those games. We all know who won those games. Do you ignore what Cal was able to do at UMass and Memphis those two remarkable years? I seriously hope not. His teams won those games. Sure, fans might get upset because they no longer have a certain amount of wins or championships, but coaches, players, recruits, etc. don't care about that. They will see UNC is back on the market and they'll no the attention they get from everyone and they'll want to be apart of that. No, taking away past accomplishments does nothing to hurt future accomplishments (or very little at least) in sports. Scholarship reductions and fines is what we initially heard, it seems like that is going to be the going-forward penalties. We'll just have to wait and see about the prior games.

Now, I still believe they will not have to vacate any games. But that is a different question.

 

[podgejeff_]

These athlete are not totally victims. They were willing participants, and they are STILL defiant in saying they did no wrong. Their parents also knew they weren't doing the work.

I personally work with "victims" everyday. UNC cheating basketball players aren't one.

Now, if there was a player who demanded his work be done, wanted to go to real classes, and wasn't allowed, then you've got something. It that's not what happened. Instead, they poured into the no show classes, didn't do the work, and laughed all they way to the practice court.

I Have have zero sympathy. They are adults they know right from wrong and so should their parents.

There's a reason I put victims in quotes in the first place.

 

[Spanish Radio]

No, I don't think taking away wins is going to hurt UNC in the future. I'm not sure anyone would consider vacating games as punishment for the future. We all watched those games. We all know who won those games. Do you ignore what Cal was able to do at UMass and Memphis those two remarkable years? I seriously hope not. His teams won those games. Sure, fans might get upset because they no longer have a certain amount of wins or championships, but coaches, players, recruits, etc. don't care about that. They will see UNC is back on the market and they'll no the attention they get from everyone and they'll want to be apart of that. No, taking away past accomplishments does nothing to hurt future accomplishments (or very little at least) in sports. Scholarship reductions and fines is what we initially heard, it seems like that is going to be the going-forward penalties. We'll just have to wait and see about the prior games.

Now, I still believe they will not have to vacate any games. But that is a different question.

Seeing those banners being rolled up and taken out of the Dean dome would sure be painful. :weary:
Fans are the ones who look at the total number of victories and UNC***s would sure plummet. Would UNC*** fall below the great IU?

 

[Bmenk]

Bobby - why in the world would the NCAA take away wins/championships ? Did UNC do anything wrong ? If you could change history what would you (UNC) have done differently ? Please elaborate.

 

[Bryce21]

No, I don't think taking away wins is going to hurt UNC in the future. I'm not sure anyone would consider vacating games as punishment for the future. We all watched those games. We all know who won those games. Do you ignore what Cal was able to do at UMass and Memphis those two remarkable years? I seriously hope not. His teams won those games. Sure, fans might get upset because they no longer have a certain amount of wins or championships, but coaches, players, recruits, etc. don't care about that. They will see UNC is back on the market and they'll no the attention they get from everyone and they'll want to be apart of that. No, taking away past accomplishments does nothing to hurt future accomplishments (or very little at least) in sports. Scholarship reductions and fines is what we initially heard, it seems like that is going to be the going-forward penalties. We'll just have to wait and see about the prior games.

Now, I still believe they will not have to vacate any games. But that is a different question.

Shocker

 

[Lumpy 2]

Seeing those banners being rolled up and taken out of the Dean dome would sure be painful. :weary:
Fans are the ones who look at the total number of victories and UNC***s would sure plummet. Would UNC*** fall below the great IU?

If they take away all the wins for every year they cheated they'll probably fall below Fresno St.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Seeing those banners being rolled up and taken out of the Dean dome would sure be painful. :weary:
Fans are the ones who look at the total number of victories and UNC***s would sure plummet. Would UNC*** fall below the great IU?

Sure, some fans would take it bad. But, I'd expect most would rather watch their team be competitive and win games, than to stare at the records for two hours. Not sure about you, but I'd rather watch a game than look at the books.

But still, as I've said over and over again, no wins will be vacated.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Bobby - why in the world would the NCAA take away wins/championships ? Did UNC do anything wrong ? If you could change history what would you (UNC) have done differently ? Please elaborate.

Re-read my post. I said no wins will be vacated. The idea of having wins taken away was in response to the op's link.

 

[Spanish Radio]

Sure, some fans would take it bad. But, I'd expect most would rather watch their team be competitive and win games, than to stare at the records for two hours. Not sure about you, but I'd rather watch a game than look at the books.

But still, as I've said over and over again, no wins will be vacated.

If the NCAA is as corrupt as UNC*** then you will be correct on no wins being vacated.

 

[.S&C.]

There's a reason I put victims in quotes in the first place.

OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Ura sly one.

 

[Ghost_of_Rupp]

No, I don't think taking away wins is going to hurt UNC in the future. I'm not sure anyone would consider vacating games as punishment for the future. We all watched those games. We all know who won those games. Do you ignore what Cal was able to do at UMass and Memphis those two remarkable years? I seriously hope not. His teams won those games. Sure, fans might get upset because they no longer have a certain amount of wins or championships, but coaches, players, recruits, etc. don't care about that. They will see UNC is back on the market and they'll no the attention they get from everyone and they'll want to be apart of that. No, taking away past accomplishments does nothing to hurt future accomplishments (or very little at least) in sports. Scholarship reductions and fines is what we initially heard, it seems like that is going to be the going-forward penalties. We'll just have to wait and see about the prior games.

Now, I still believe they will not have to vacate any games. But that is a different question.

 

[Bodvar Bjarki]

UNC wants women's basketball and football to bear the brunt of the penalties. Men's Basketball can take loss of scholarships and post season ban and all of that...

But the entire crux of the battle is men's basketball wins and banners. That is everything in this fight. If UNC escapes without losing any banners in men's basketball then their primary objective has been accomplished and they win. If UNC escapes without vacating any wins in men's basketball then their secondary objective has been accomplished and they win.

Do not take your eyes off the ball. That is what this entire fight is about and that determines who will win and who will lose.

 

[John Calipoobah]

UNCheats already has two Helms banners on order to replace the ones that the NCAA is about to take. That's just how they roll.

 

[Mark Gastineau]

At unc, abdicating the obligations of leadership in scandal

When we spend millions on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers

So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade

Like many, I was distressed, though not surprised, that unc-CH has spent north of $10 million on public relations consultants and lawyers to deal with our academic and athletic scandals. I suppose this is what the aspiration to “run the university like a business” looks like.

Over $5 million went to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. The folks at Skadden, Arps got a couple million more. We paid $1.3 million to Bond, Schoeneck & King; another million to Baker, Tilly. Almost double that amount went to Edelman, a giant PR outfit, offering expertise on “corporate reputation management.” FleishmanHillard raked in almost $400,000. You’d think the Old Well had relocated to Madison Avenue.

High-dollar outside investigators were reportedly necessary because, after years of stonewalling and false assurance, no one would believe an analysis conducted by the administration. A campus public relations officer explained, enthusiastically, that the millions to Edelman were spent to “support our management of media relations, content creation and internal communication.” FleishmanHillard’s website boasts it is “the most complete communications agency in the world, capable of reaching any audience, with any message, through any channel.” Praise the Lord. The new carolina Way revealed.

There are, I suppose, millions of things that could be said of this. I limit myself to two.

First, at the end of every story about unc’s breathtaking expenditures, the same concluding assurance appears. “Officials say that none of these legal and public relations bills are paid for by tuition or state appropriations.” The money comes from the private unc Foundation. Not to worry.

This is, at best, only half the story. Much money given to the university is designated for a specific purpose – to create scholarships for needy students, to build new classroom facilities, to support professorships in the arts, and the like.

The dollars used to pay PR flacks and branding specialists, on the other hand, must come from undesignated gifts. Surely no donor has established a fund to help the chancellor decide and articulate what the university stands for. I’m guessing it never before would have been thought necessary.

When we spend $10 million or $15 million on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers. I’ve never heard the university admit this. So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade.

Second, when did we decide to routinely outsource the obligations of leadership? Chapel Hill has a very robust legion of well-provided for administrators. We have a chancellor and a provost. Each has a bountiful array of associates. They are supported by a hefty public relations team and a first-rate group of lawyers.

Still, these days, whenever we face a significant challenge, we assume the need to hire a bevy of the nation’s highest-paid consultants to teach us how to behave like a decent institution. Having abdicated the obligations of leadership, we seem to think wisdom, character and savvy can be purchased. It’s not working.

Our greatest chancellor, William B. Aycock, died a few months ago. Dealing with crises like the Dixie Classic and the Speaker Ban, Aycock saw his share of trouble. Still, he never considered hiring “the most complete communications agency in the world.”

Thinking of Aycock, it’s easy to envision two distinct approaches to leadership and problem solving. In the first, decision-makers sit around a huge table in South Building. There is a chancellor and her cadre of assistants. And then a provost and his sizable group. Add to that our internal public relations team. And our external PR posse. Then there are internal and external groups of lawyers. As I said, it’s a big table.

They work for days, or weeks, responding to a crisis. Eventually a decision is made, and the group produces a statement to be issued by the chancellor. The final product is so chockablock with doublespeak that faculty members jokingly circulate email translations for the bureaucratically unschooled.

In the other model, Aycock returns to his campus office late in the evening after having had dinner with his family. He has consulted with university officials throughout the day. Now he sits behind his desk, a small lamp providing illumination. He makes the toughest decisions. And with pen and yellow legal pad, he explains them to the university community and to the people of North carolina.

The first model, of course, costs millions. The second, a relative pittance. But the cheap route would outperform the big boys every time.

Gene Nichol is Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor at unc-Chapel Hill.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article46787900.html

 

[preacherfan]

At unc, abdicating the obligations of leadership in scandal

When we spend millions on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers

So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade

Like many, I was distressed, though not surprised, that unc-CH has spent north of $10 million on public relations consultants and lawyers to deal with our academic and athletic scandals. I suppose this is what the aspiration to “run the university like a business” looks like.

Over $5 million went to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. The folks at Skadden, Arps got a couple million more. We paid $1.3 million to Bond, Schoeneck & King; another million to Baker, Tilly. Almost double that amount went to Edelman, a giant PR outfit, offering expertise on “corporate reputation management.” FleishmanHillard raked in almost $400,000. You’d think the Old Well had relocated to Madison Avenue.

High-dollar outside investigators were reportedly necessary because, after years of stonewalling and false assurance, no one would believe an analysis conducted by the administration. A campus public relations officer explained, enthusiastically, that the millions to Edelman were spent to “support our management of media relations, content creation and internal communication.” FleishmanHillard’s website boasts it is “the most complete communications agency in the world, capable of reaching any audience, with any message, through any channel.” Praise the Lord. The new carolina Way revealed.

There are, I suppose, millions of things that could be said of this. I limit myself to two.

First, at the end of every story about unc’s breathtaking expenditures, the same concluding assurance appears. “Officials say that none of these legal and public relations bills are paid for by tuition or state appropriations.” The money comes from the private unc Foundation. Not to worry.

This is, at best, only half the story. Much money given to the university is designated for a specific purpose – to create scholarships for needy students, to build new classroom facilities, to support professorships in the arts, and the like.

The dollars used to pay PR flacks and branding specialists, on the other hand, must come from undesignated gifts. Surely no donor has established a fund to help the chancellor decide and articulate what the university stands for. I’m guessing it never before would have been thought necessary.

When we spend $10 million or $15 million on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers. I’ve never heard the university admit this. So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade.

Second, when did we decide to routinely outsource the obligations of leadership? Chapel Hill has a very robust legion of well-provided for administrators. We have a chancellor and a provost. Each has a bountiful array of associates. They are supported by a hefty public relations team and a first-rate group of lawyers.

Still, these days, whenever we face a significant challenge, we assume the need to hire a bevy of the nation’s highest-paid consultants to teach us how to behave like a decent institution. Having abdicated the obligations of leadership, we seem to think wisdom, character and savvy can be purchased. It’s not working.

Our greatest chancellor, William B. Aycock, died a few months ago. Dealing with crises like the Dixie Classic and the Speaker Ban, Aycock saw his share of trouble. Still, he never considered hiring “the most complete communications agency in the world.”

Thinking of Aycock, it’s easy to envision two distinct approaches to leadership and problem solving. In the first, decision-makers sit around a huge table in South Building. There is a chancellor and her cadre of assistants. And then a provost and his sizable group. Add to that our internal public relations team. And our external PR posse. Then there are internal and external groups of lawyers. As I said, it’s a big table.

They work for days, or weeks, responding to a crisis. Eventually a decision is made, and the group produces a statement to be issued by the chancellor. The final product is so chockablock with doublespeak that faculty members jokingly circulate email translations for the bureaucratically unschooled.

In the other model, Aycock returns to his campus office late in the evening after having had dinner with his family. He has consulted with university officials throughout the day. Now he sits behind his desk, a small lamp providing illumination. He makes the toughest decisions. And with pen and yellow legal pad, he explains them to the university community and to the people of North carolina.

The first model, of course, costs millions. The second, a relative pittance. But the cheap route would outperform the big boys every time.

Gene Nichol is Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor at unc-Chapel Hill.

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article46787900.html

Great post, Mark! I've said it all along that it makes NO sense to spend millions on outside help when the university is supposedly on the best in the nation. Does UNC not have a single person who is qualified to do PR, legal work or investigation? If not, why would anyone send their kid there? I want my kid to learn from those who not only know the theory but the practice as well.

 

[Bodvar Bjarki]

Great post. Thanks for bringing that to the board.

 

[TankedCat]

At what point does the effort to save Carolina Basketball at the expense of students - both in terms of education integrity and funding pisses off enough people that they throw the whole lot out?

 

[Bodvar Bjarki]

At what point does the effort to save Carolina Basketball at the expense of students - both in terms of education integrity and funding pisses off enough people that they throw the whole lot out?

The cancer is so deep and so entrenched that there is no way to cut it out as it would kill the patient.

Not joking here at all, UNC NEEDS an intervention. Some outside power that can come in and gut the place with the hope that something with an ounce of integrity can take root in that putrid swamp. They need a reincarnation or at least a phoenix rising from what surely needs to be ashes.

 

[Chuckinden]

While that's what I think the NCAA COI should have done (I.e. Go ahead and rule on the existing NOA), I think you're mistaken that they can proceed now.

The reason being that they never forced UNC to go ahead and submit their response within the original 90 days.

Without a response in hand, I don't think procedurally they can go ahead with determining a punishment. Instead the ball is back in the NCAA's court to send out an amended COA.

Now if UNC tries to pull this stunt again by continuing to delay, the NCAA are at best fools and at worst co-conspirators if they don't force UNC to go ahead and respond to the original charges.

Right here is the key word. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the NCAA isn't helping UNCheat along on how to look like they are fighting this.

 

[TankedCat]

there are too many enablers - the NCAA, ESPN, the head of the ACC, mention 1/2 to 3/4 of the state politicians are in the bag for them.

Its going to take a revolt of the students, parents and taxpayers to cut out this mentality.

And after seeing students at Penn State march in protest to the firing of Joe Paterno, I'd have little faith in that happening either.