When does UNC's time come?

[crazyy8s]

UKnCincy, if the statements you make are true as to the inequity of benefit for athletes vs. traditional students, then it is clearly impermissible benefits and there is no reasonable way for the NCAA to not issue sanctions. As far as "FI" is concerned, the factual information items as listed in the NOA are factual pieces of evidence. Most of them are email records. There is no "FI" listed stating there were impermissible benefits. The is no "FI" stating there was a lack of institutional control. The "FI" are factual pieces of evidence that must be weighed when rendering a judgment about the accusations of "impermissible benefits" and "lack of institutional control". My uncertainty about the burden of proof is in relation to the accusations, not the evidence being presented. I would hope all evidence being presented is factual.

 

[crazyy8s]

I am glad you have your grammar right. Now, you need to study up on how the NCAA works. The comparison to the court system is simply not accurate.

It's certainly not a perfect comparison, but there is a process in place by which a university can defend themselves against allegations. The NOA is not the verdict. That's really all I wanted that to say. The "FI" listed in the NOA are supposed to be facts. The allegations are what those facts strongly appear to indicate, but it's not yet set in stone that the allegations will stick. Am I wrong in that? Would you offer a comparison that would better fit?

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

UKnCincy, if the statement you make are true as to the inequity of benefit for athletes vs. traditional students, then it is clearly impermissible benefits and there is no reasonable way for the NCAA to not issue sanctions. As far as "FI" is concerned, the factual information items as listed in the NOA are factual pieces of evidence. Most of them are email records. There is no "FI" listed stating there were impermissible benefits. The is no "FI" stating there was a lack of institutional control. The "FI" are factual pieces of evidence that must be weighed when rendering a judgment about the accusations of "impermissible benefits" and "lack of institutional control". My uncertainty about the burden of proof is in relation to the accusations, not the evidence being presented. I would hope all evidence being present is factual.

The FIs include under allegation No. 1 are the instances when an extra benefit was provided. The NOA states that NCAA believes UNC provided extra benefits and here are some of the instances where that occurred. Those "instances" are the FI. There will never be an FI stating there were extra benefits as you have written above. You're clearly not qualified to discuss this.

The lack of institutional control change stems from the aggregation of all preceding allegations and their associated FI. You obviously didn't read the NOA closely.

 

[preacherfan]

It's certainly not a perfect comparison, but there is a process in place by which a university can defend themselves against allegations. The NOA is not the verdict. That's really all I wanted that to say. The "FI" listed in the NOA are supposed to be facts. The allegations are what those facts strongly appear to indicate, but it's not yet set in stone that the allegations will stick. Am I wrong in that? Would you offer a comparison that would better fit?

It is not a valid comparison. End of story.

 

[crazyy8s]

UKnCincy, I appreciate your attempt, but you are factually wrong. The FI are far from merely accounts of impermissible benefits. Is FI18 (included below) an example of improper benefits? This email factually happened, but asking about an assignment as an academic advisor sounds fairly benign to me. The what matters is what the totality of all these FI statements indicate. What do they indicate? UNC is a scummy academic institution at the very least, and very likely (almost definitely) systemically used that to benefit athletes and the athletic program. It's up to the NCAA to decide if the totality of that evidence is enough proof to meet their "burden of proof". That "burden of proof" is where I see the most ambiguity in the NCAA. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it just a preponderance of the evidence? Is it if the drunk on the street corner thought it was enough proof?

FI18: May 29, 2009 – Email from Boxill to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Boxill asking about an assignment for an AFAM course. (Item1_BoxillToCrowder_052909_NorthCarolina_00231)

 

[crazyy8s]

It is not a valid comparison. End of story.

Come on preacherfan. You are more reasonable than that. I want to learn. Correct me when I am wrong instead of just dismissing my statements.

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

UKnCincy, I appreciate your attempt, but you are factually wrong. The FI are far from merely accounts of impermissible benefits. Is FI18 (included below) an example of improper benefits? This email factually happened, but asking about an assignment as an academic advisor sounds fairly benign to me. The what matters is what the totality of all these FI statements indicate. What do they indicate? UNC is a scummy academic institution at the very least, and very likely (almost definitely) systemically used that to benefit athletes and the athletic program. It's up to the NCAA to decide if the totality of that evidence is enough proof to meet their "burden of proof". That "burden of proof" is where I see the most ambiguity in the NCAA. Is it beyond a reasonable doubt? Is it just a preponderance of the evidence? Is it if the drunk on the street corner thought it was enough proof?

FI18: May 29, 2009 – Email from Boxill to Crowder. This includes, but is not limited to, Boxill asking about an assignment for an AFAM course. (Item1_BoxillToCrowder_052909_NorthCarolina_00231)

Listen Bobby, merely requesting an assignment on behalf of an athlete is an extra benefit. Advisors to non-athletes do not contact someone to ask if the assignment for a specific class is the same as it has always been. Asking that question is an extra benefit.

 

[preacherfan]

Come on preacherfan. You are more reasonable than that. I want to learn. Correct me when I am wrong instead of just dismissing my statements.

UKnCincy nailed it in an earlier post: "You're clearly not qualified to discuss this."

If you think there is ANY real comparison between a court of law and how the NCAA operates, well, you really have no clue whatsoever. I think you need to just wait a few months and see how the NCAA rules and then maybe you will begin to understand.

 

[crazyy8s]

The only comparison I made to court was comparing a notice of allegations to pressing chargers in that the accused would have an opportunity to defend themselves. I'm looking at the the internal operating procedures right now (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 COI IOPs_08_13_2015 - Effective_0.pdf). I'd appreciate it if you were man enough to provide material evidence to why I'm "clearly not qualified". Show me in there where you can't make a defense? If using the term "pressing charges" disqualifies me from discussing how the NCAA operates, then you exemplify why I've been discussing this in the first place. I know nobody in this thread believes it, but I'm a huge UK fan. I just can't stand people putting their blinders on and dismissing any opinions (and sometimes facts) someone presents that they disagree with.

 

[Ukblue12]

The day after Roy retired and not a day sooner

 

[kybassfan]

I'm having too much fun with this. Seriously enough, guys. I agree with you. They've cheated. They should be punished. I just think it's a lot more complex to prove than something as simple as money, or prostitutes, or cars being an impermissible benefit. The NCAA thinks they have enough, thus they issued the NOA. I'm just saying its a muddy situation, and the strength of any UNC defense would be in that mud. I don't recall that the "paper classes" were not overseen by a legitimate professor. I'll have to look into that one, but thanks preacherfan; that certainly adds another layer to the sketchy academic practices. As for the grammar... sorry for the slip up. I guess I should have gotten my education somewhere other than UNC. jk.

Just something to think about that I believe gets overlooked too often. Ask yourself one question.

Why were those classes created in the first place?

When you work through the correct answer to that question, the issue of impermissible benefits will no longer be a struggle for you.

My take is that those classes existed but for one purpose and were structured they way they were but for one purpose.

Athletes. Easy, no attendance requirement and academically corrupt assignments. Perfectly engineered with the athlete in mind.

Get your head around that. The discussion will be over as the fraudulent nature of the classes was determined by SACS, an independent body relative to the NCAA. Our NC buddies would tell us that the SACS ruling is proof that this debacle is an academic matter and not in the purview of the NCAA. But they forget (ignore) the very reason for the classes in the first place. SACS is just the stake through the heart of the demon.

 

[preacherfan]

The only comparison I made to court was comparing a notice of allegations to pressing chargers in that the accused would have an opportunity to defend themselves. I'm looking at the the internal operating procedures right now (http://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/files/2015 COI IOPs_08_13_2015 - Effective_0.pdf). I'd appreciate it if you were man enough to provide material evidence to why I'm "clearly not qualified". Show me in there where you can't make a defense? If using the term "pressing charges" disqualifies me from discussing how the NCAA operates, then you exemplify why I've been discussing this in the first place. I know nobody in this thread believes it, but I'm a huge UK fan. I just can't stand people putting their blinders on and dismissing any opinions (and sometimes facts) someone presents that they disagree with.

[roll]You are killing me! [roll]

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

[roll]You are killing me! [roll]

It is quite bizarre for someone to defend their qualifications after a steady stream of posts that were blatantly inaccurate.

 

[PhattyJ4UK_rivals309166]

UNC is trying to use a technicality to get off. You're fans lack of outrage at this and this entire scam is amazing. You're university has sold its academic soul for athletic glory. You're fans spent decades telling us how clean you were and meanwhile you're university was running a diploma mill the entire time.

Please please please tell me that you used predictatext and didn't get that wrong 4 times in a few sentences

 

[Spanish Radio]

Two individuals have

Please please please tell me that you used predictatext and didn't get that wrong 4 times in a few sentences

Stupid phone did it. I wasn't paying attention.

 

[PhattyJ4UK_rivals309166]

Two individuals have

Stupid phone did it. I wasn't paying attention.

That's what I figured as I have always considered you "above average" intelligence. Haha.

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

 

[ChucktownCats]

Listen Bobby...

How do you guys let this troll get your goat? He isn't even defending the fact that he isn't a UK fan at this point. SMDH

 

[Spanish Radio]

How do you guys let this troll get your goat? He isn't even defending the fact that he isn't a UK fan at this point. SMDH

I love discussing UNC's diploma mill. He certainly doesn't get my goat. These UNC guy's weaseling skills make it even more fun.

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

 

[UKnCincy_rivals]

How do you guys let this troll get your goat? He isn't even defending the fact that he isn't a UK fan at this point. SMDH

You're misreading the dynamic.

 

[Spanish Radio]

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

[laughing] Would you do it for three scooby snacks [laughing]

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

[roll]

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

[jumpingsmile]

 

[preacherfan]

How do you guys let this troll get your goat? He isn't even defending the fact that he isn't a UK fan at this point. SMDH

Keep in mind that we are the CATS and he is the mouse. [laughing] I have been laughing all evening.

 

[CatPhight_rivals65113]

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

When hell freezes over.

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

Nobody is making an argument that nothing will happen to UNC so I wish we would stop talking about that.

The point is banners. That's the entire game here. If none come down then UNC wins. It really is that simple. That's what UNC has always been fighting to protect. They do not want to be the first school to have one taken down and be smeared eternally that way. All their money and all their influence are being brought to bear with that one single goal in mind.

My contention is that there will be sound and fury and all sorts of penalties but UNC will get to keep the hardware. I am sure of that. That's what all UNC's efforts have been geared towards. So that is what our measurement should be.

 

[LadyCaytIL]

They can have the banners.... just make sure they dont win another title for another 15 years .... equalling the time they cheated like crazy

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

If no banners come down they skated. Period.

 

[LadyCaytIL]

Well since no major sport has stripped a title away... its not going to start with UNC. (USC was stripped away by the BCS , a 3rd party and not the NCAA and the NCAA still sees them as champs)

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

No major sport has ever cheated the way UNC has. This calls for multiple championships to come down: 09, 05, and 93.

 

[LadyCaytIL]

Um UCLA cheated basically the same... got them 11 titles... all 11 titles have been proven of cheating to acquire..

 

[Supreme Lord Z]

No, UCLA did not cheat the way UNC did. Nobody has schemed to do what UNC has done. Nobody. Ever. No other sporting program has ever been willing to sacrifice its own University whole in order to protect itself. No other University has ever became this warped. This heinous. Nor this desperate.

 

[preacherfan]

Um UCLA cheated basically the same... got them 11 titles... all 11 titles have been proven of cheating to acquire..

The biggest difference is that all that came out after the fact for UCLA but, for UNC, it was happening when the original scandal broke. UNC shouldn't be protected by the statute of limitations as UCLA was.

 

[WildmanWilson_rivals]

The UNC fans are no different than UL fans in that they will not own what they did. They want to blame someone else and make excuses. They have no honor. All they want it to get off the hook.

So spin it all you want. It still doesn't mean if the punishment doesn't come as harshly as it should that you are somehow not guilty as hell. The world knows how your school was able to rise to the level it's at.....CHEATING!

 

[MNantz]

When Ole Roy doesn't cry at the end of season loss or grows his second full set of teeth !

 

[hotelblue]

[laughing] Would you do it for three scooby snacks [laughing]

[roll][roll][roll][roll][roll][roll]