Findings provide clues to UNC’s fate
- Thread starter preacher_tom
- Start date
![[banana]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1682178.gif "banana [banana]")
"Baghdad" Bobby arrives to explain it all away in five...four...three...
What I read was that the NCAA is trying it's best to help cover it up with as little repercussions as possible.
The NCAA notice, however, speaks only to 10 athletes who exceeded the independent study limit. What’s key there, and may prove to be a break for UNC, is that the NCAA appears to be only counting students who exceeded the limit while at the university from 2006-07 and after.
------------
please tell me that doesn't take 2005 off the table
note ....after further review in section 3 it appears that 2005 is definitely in question for other concerns
------------
please tell me that doesn't take 2005 off the table
note ....after further review in section 3 it appears that 2005 is definitely in question for other concerns
The best part is that Dan Kane continues to provide an alternative - and realistic perspective to balance out the Bradley Bethel, EPSN bullshit we're hearing ad nauseam - and by educating the general public on what is really there - invalidating the Bobby G's of the UNC defenders club message of propaganda and muddling.
In turn those educated voices can speak clearly to the NCAA about what is just and fair in regards to UNC's punishment and pressure the NCAA to act instead of being a willing partner in UNC's attempt to redefine what cheating is.
In turn those educated voices can speak clearly to the NCAA about what is just and fair in regards to UNC's punishment and pressure the NCAA to act instead of being a willing partner in UNC's attempt to redefine what cheating is.
This was an interesting post in the comments section:
John Wolf
In NOA Exhibit FI250, the requirements for Independent Studies and Special Studies for Credit are described as far back as the 1997-1998 UNC Undergraduate Bulletin. In the early days, Independent Studies referred to correspondence courses through the Friday Center. Special Studies was the label given to courses intended for providing undergraduate credit for internships and special programs. Both descriptions evolved over time to the current descriptions we have today.
A review of the full 2014-2015 Undergraduate Bulletin (available on UNC’s website) reveals the correspondence courses have now been moved to a category of Self-Paced courses and no longer carry the heading Independent Studies. The description for what once were categorized as Special Studies appears to be a part of the description of of Independent Studies.
Whether Special Studies of ‘97/’98 or Independent Studies of ‘14/’15, one phrase has survived the evolution of academic policy: “make individual contracts for work under the supervision of a member of the permanent faculty.“
Much has been written about Crowder’s exclusive management of the AFAM courses, from the advertisement to grade entry. Obviously that is in direct conflict with “supervision of the permanent faculty.” One question I don’t recall being asked or answered:
Can UNC produce just one of the individual contracts for the 3100 students that participated in the special/independent study version of the AFAM courses?
A suggestion for a few places to look would include the university’s Office of the Registrar, departmental academic records, or email archives that can be queried by the UNC Public Records Office. Until such time one of these contracts, redacted of course, appears in the addendum of a university report, I'm going to assume no such document exists.
In NOA Exhibit FI250, the requirements for Independent Studies and Special Studies for Credit are described as far back as the 1997-1998 UNC Undergraduate Bulletin. In the early days, Independent Studies referred to correspondence courses through the Friday Center. Special Studies was the label given to courses intended for providing undergraduate credit for internships and special programs. Both descriptions evolved over time to the current descriptions we have today.
A review of the full 2014-2015 Undergraduate Bulletin (available on UNC’s website) reveals the correspondence courses have now been moved to a category of Self-Paced courses and no longer carry the heading Independent Studies. The description for what once were categorized as Special Studies appears to be a part of the description of of Independent Studies.
Whether Special Studies of ‘97/’98 or Independent Studies of ‘14/’15, one phrase has survived the evolution of academic policy: “make individual contracts for work under the supervision of a member of the permanent faculty.“
Much has been written about Crowder’s exclusive management of the AFAM courses, from the advertisement to grade entry. Obviously that is in direct conflict with “supervision of the permanent faculty.” One question I don’t recall being asked or answered:
Can UNC produce just one of the individual contracts for the 3100 students that participated in the special/independent study version of the AFAM courses?
A suggestion for a few places to look would include the university’s Office of the Registrar, departmental academic records, or email archives that can be queried by the UNC Public Records Office. Until such time one of these contracts, redacted of course, appears in the addendum of a university report, I'm going to assume no such document exists.
A few of the highlights included:
Questions about the independent studies began in 2002 when the number was underreported.
150 athletes took more than 12 hrs of bogus courses, 33 would not qualify as full time students without the fake classes. The NOA only charges 10, they only counted 06/07 and after.
NCAA may not be taking into account that Crowder believed the 12 hour policy was in effect when she was setting up the bogus classes. There is evidence she began setting up the fake lecture classes no later than 1999 in order to avoid exceeding the 12 hour rule in independent studies.
71% of the 154 students who took 5 or more bogus lecture classes and 1/2 of the 30 who took 4 or more of the fake independent studies in AFAM were athletes. There is also evidence suggesting the fake classes weren't confined only to AFAM, including emails from Bexhill implicating her philosophy classes.
Approximately 40 exhibits in the NOA are tied to men's basketball including emails from Wayne Walden and Janet Huffstetter, a longtime tutor for members of the men's team.
In all likelihood they just cherry-picked the least of the transgressions and threw them together to appease the masses. UNC men's basketball program will not be forfeiting any wins or titles. They'll lose some schollies, some cash, and be told not to do it again. I didn't see any smoking gun in the report or the exhibits. I, for one, don't even care when they release their punishment because I know they aren't going to do anything to tarnish the reputation of a couple of dead coaches by erasing their records. I could also see Roy Williams getting dinged, but it won't be too consequential.
Boeheim and Cal lost wins..........if Roy doesn't have wins taken away, then all of this investigation is coming up very short.
Any sport that 'over-indulged' in the independent studies should be dinged and hard.
I expect fines to take place as well, since the UNC administration did not have a prevention in place to limit the number of fake courses.
And what's the difference in getting benefits for working a 'fake' job and 'fake' classes? Many schools have been punished for their hiring practices of athletes, yet the very foundation of learning is abused, and the NCAA may or may not send a harsh signal?
There's plenty more wrong here than just UNC.
Any sport that 'over-indulged' in the independent studies should be dinged and hard.
I expect fines to take place as well, since the UNC administration did not have a prevention in place to limit the number of fake courses.
And what's the difference in getting benefits for working a 'fake' job and 'fake' classes? Many schools have been punished for their hiring practices of athletes, yet the very foundation of learning is abused, and the NCAA may or may not send a harsh signal?
There's plenty more wrong here than just UNC.
there really is no worse cheating in the eyes of the NCAA than academic. If your charter is to educate, then cheating at educating is the cardinal sin - the NCAA has an obligation to deliver the do not pass go or collect $200, go straight to jail card.
I think the dead time between the NOA and the punishment may be a good thing as people adjust to the idea that UNC indeed is the dirtiest program in the history of the NCAA.
Our goal should be to continually provide well reasoned and factual rebuttal to the decreasing number of Carolina defenders.
We can't control what the NCAA is going to ultimately do, but we can certainly make it harder on them to justify why they did it.
I think the dead time between the NOA and the punishment may be a good thing as people adjust to the idea that UNC indeed is the dirtiest program in the history of the NCAA.
Our goal should be to continually provide well reasoned and factual rebuttal to the decreasing number of Carolina defenders.
We can't control what the NCAA is going to ultimately do, but we can certainly make it harder on them to justify why they did it.
While I did think they would whitewash it before I read Tarnished Heels it is very obvious that they can't . It has gone too far and too many reputable journalist (and some influential unreputable ones) in the national media know about it.
They know for instance that one chief hire for UNC athletics also had his assistant hired by the NCAA at the same time. That the NCAA has to this point played favorites. That based upon similar cases at FSU and Minn resulting in very harsh penalties UNC should receive the death penalty if the law of precedent and fair play apply.
That the penalty imposed should be doubled because of the persistent coverup by UNC and failure to cooperate.
It's all there in that book and Jay Smith's book . Knowledge forces public officials and organizations to take action.if the NCAA doesn't come down extremely hard on UNC the story will not go away. The NCAA and why they refused to act will take both UNC and the NCAA down by death by a thousand cuts.
As in so many cases the bigger story is the cover up.ther will be a Pulitzer Prize waiting for the journalist and news entity that uncovers the cover up if UNC is let off without major major penalties.
Last edited:
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Line of the day!
Dan Kane with another piece calling out UNC for over redacting the NOA before releasing. When I try to pull up the article, it prompts me to subscribe, but I can still read it in the background. Maybe somebody can post the article in it's entirety. Pretty good stuff. Also very telling that MBB was very much implicated by the NCAA, despite what Bobby_G_Spot says.
link to Kane article
link to Kane article
I can read it just fine. I think it works if you clear your cookies.
Also, if you know how, you can use your browsers "inspect element" tool and simply delete the 2 div elements in the document containing the popup. I wouldn't recommend this except for occasional use. The work Kane has done on this scandal is worth paying for a subscription.
Also, if you know how, you can use your browsers "inspect element" tool and simply delete the 2 div elements in the document containing the popup. I wouldn't recommend this except for occasional use. The work Kane has done on this scandal is worth paying for a subscription.
The short answer is no.
When this first hit the fan last year, I went to a few other boards to see what they were saying on this subject. There was literally nothing.
I only went to their rivals boards since that was easiest. I know Rivals isn't the main board for a lot of schools. Most schools don't have a separate board for basketball. It's football, then all the rest are combined into one board. I went to what I thought were basketball schools, and schools with "holier than thou attitudes".
I think it's picking up steam. The Duke Rivals board has a thread or two, and on the Scout boards there are some other ACC schools talking about it.
Not sure why you say this. There aren't a lot of schools with serious basketball message boards but all of the ones I've seen that do have had substantial discussions of the scandal at some point.
Similar threads
