UNC 20yrs false classes..NO PROB...Derek Rose...

[jeffbuckies]

I'm just hoping after all of this investigation from the FBI is finished that it forces the NCAA to be fair across the board. I'm about positive that it won't, but I hope that it happens. North Carolina and that ******** loop hole is a joke. We have all seen other schools punished for a lot less.

I'm just hoping Duke and Coach K finally get exposed by the FBI for their crap. I cannot believe how no one in the media sees through his bs disguise. He gets put up on a throne while other coaches, coaches who actually care about the kids, get vilified. How many players has Coach K chewed up and spit out over the years, yet he gets praised, while others like Cal get crucified as the anit-college basketball people.

 

[Woodrow24]

I'm just hoping Duke and Coach K finally get exposed by the FBI for their crap. I cannot believe how no one in the media sees through his bs disguise. He gets put up on a throne while other coaches, coaches who actually care about the kids, get vilified. How many players has Coach K chewed up and spit out over the years, yet he gets praised, while others like Cal get crucified as the anit-college basketball people.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens after the investigation is over with. Who knows how many programs are going to be in trouble. The problem is will they be punished equally by the NCAA? I seriously doubt it.

 

[bthaunert]

Lance Thomas wouldn't respond to the NCAA and the issue of how he acquired $100,000 in bling so the NCAA decided there was nothing they could do to Duke. Why was that not the case with Memphis?

Again, not advocating for the NCAA and their consistency. Only clarifying for the poster I responded to on what happened with the Rose case.

 

[sambowieshin_rivals]

Again, not advocating for the NCAA and their consistency. Only clarifying for the poster I responded to on what happened with the Rose case.

I hear ya. Wish I had a job where I could be consistently inconsistent and still get paid to do it.

 

[ColonelCat_rivals376764]

Well I couldn't keep taking people's word for it so I spent 21 seconds looking it up myself and the answer was obvious why UGA was punished.

"No. 21 Georgia (19-8) suspended Harrick with pay and declared two starters academically ineligible after university officials discovered evidence that the players, Chris Daniels and Rashad Wright, did not regularly attend a class in which they both received A's. Jim Harrick Jr., who was suspended without pay 10 days ago, taught the class, ''Coaching Principles and Strategies of Basketball.'' All 31 students in the class received A's; 10 of them were athletes."

Here we are back to the point I keep trying to make in the this thread.... the ncaa has zero authority to do anything unless someone else with authority does it for them. Georgia is the one that ruled it's players ineligible. That is the key to it all the difference between the two schools. Just like Rose the ncaa had no choice but to punish them for playing ineligible players. North Carolina did not play anyone that has been ruled ineligible thus the ncaa can't punish them for it.

Evidently UNC** believes that no wrong was done and faux academics are part of the "Carolina Way" Otherwise an outstanding academic university would have self-reported--wink wink..Sleep on that for a while. They learned from Duke, give up nothing, let the NCAA find out on their own.

 

[Lumpy 2]

The thing is that someone else should have done the right thing and decertified those classes and then it would have been a easy call for the ncaa. Carolina got out front and made sure that didn't happen. The ncaa does not have power over academics which was Jay Bilas point all along. The ncaa needed someone like they had in the Rose case to disqualify the players before they can act.

The NCAA had someone like they had in the Rose case to be able to disqualify the players who took the fraudulent classes. The school itself admitted to SACS that they had committed academic fraud, but then told the COI that admission in their response to SACS was a "typo" and the committee chose to believe them. Rose said he took and passed the SAT but they decided he wasn't being truthful.

In the Rose case, the NCAA said eligibility was a strict liability issue and any victories with an ineligible player had to be forfeited.

In the UNC case, the COI said it's "more likely than not" that athletes received fraudulent credit but the organization's bylaws leave it to the schools themselves to determine academic fraud.

By using the NCAA's own logic, how did they have the authority to declare Rose ineligible? Rose was was cleared to play, and according to the UNC ruling, the NCAA bylaws leave it to schools to determine academic eligibility.

 

[jeffbuckies]

The NCAA had someone like they had in the Rose case to be able to disqualify the players who took the fraudulent classes. The school itself admitted to SACS that they had committed academic fraud, but then told the COI that admission in their response to SACS was a "typo" and the committee chose to believe them. Rose said he took and passed the SAT but they decided he wasn't being truthful.

In the Rose case, the NCAA said eligibility was a strict liability issue and any victories with an ineligible player had to be forfeited.

In the UNC case, the COI said it's "more likely than not" that athletes received fraudulent credit but the organization's bylaws leave it to the schools themselves to determine academic fraud.

By using the NCAA's own logic, how did they have the authority to declare Rose ineligible? Rose was was cleared to play, and according to the UNC ruling, the NCAA bylaws leave it to schools to determine academic eligibility.

In the Rose situation, it was The ETS that cancelled his score that was the big development. After they cancelled his score, he no longer met the entry requirements of a collegiate athlete. The NCAA had no option but to rule him ineligible.

Once again, it was The ETS that forced the NCAA hand, not the NCAA.

 

[Lumpy 2]

^The clearinghouse invalidated the test score after a handwriting expert concluded she could not determine that Rose took the test. The basis for the NCAA ruling was Rose's failure to cooperate with the investigation. They never proved he didn't take the test.

In the UNC case, the NCAA had the school's admission to SACS that they had committed academic fraud to maintain athletes' eligibility.

Which case would you think the NCAA had a more valid reason to punish a school, the one where a player was initially cleared to play, then had his test score invalidated because a handwriting expert couldn't determine whether he took the test, or the one where the school had already admitted to committing academic fraud?

 

[jeffbuckies]

^The clearinghouse invalidated the test score after a handwriting expert concluded she could not determine that Rose took the test. The basis for the NCAA ruling was Rose's failure to cooperate with the investigation. They never proved he didn't take the test.

In the UNC case, the NCAA had the school's admission to SACS that they had committed academic fraud to maintain athletes' eligibility.

Which case would you think the NCAA had a more valid reason to punish a school, the one where a player was initially cleared to play, then had his test score invalidated because a handwriting expert couldn't determine whether he took the test, or the one where the school had already admitted to committing academic fraud?

I'm not sure why I keep discussing this, as I don't really care about Rose or Memphis. However, once again, it was the ETS that cancelled his score/test, which forced the NCAA to rule him ineligible. In UNC's case, no one had the nuts/morality to toss out the classes. This left the NCAA with very little they could do, as far as ineligibility is concerned.

 

[Lumpy 2]

I'm not sure why I keep discussing this, as I don't really care about Rose or Memphis. However, once again, it was the ETS that cancelled his score/test, which forced the NCAA to rule him ineligible. In UNC's case, no one had the nuts/morality to toss out the classes. This left the NCAA with very little they could do, as far as ineligibility is concerned.

That's true if you ignore the fact that UNC had already admitted to academic fraud.

 

[jeffbuckies]

That's true if you ignore the fact that UNC had already admitted to academic fraud.

Yes they did. Unfortunately, SACS has no balls and didn't throw out the credits. This left an already impotent NCAA with very little to work with.

I am pretty sure that the NCAA would have loved to of punished UNC, otherwise they would not have spent so much time and money into their multiple investigations and NOAs. However, due to the way they are set up, they just could not.

We can argue if they should have in other cases, for example Penn State. But, breaking their own rules to punish before should never justify breaking the rules again. Just my opinion.