Inside College Sports: NCAA redefines academic misconduct after UNC case
- Thread starter preacher_tom
- Start date
Let me get this straight. Memphis has a final four taken away due to a questionable test score after they cleared Rose but UN Cheat has the worst and most disgraceful mess in the history of the NCAA and they suddenly decide to change the rules so they don't have to strip titles and show Dean Smith for what he was. ESPN's money does talk.
we wanted to do more but we couldn't and even though we can't do anything with UNC, the *next* university we catch doing this will really pay a price
Seems this is the tack the NCAA took when dook ran afoul as well. "We realize they broke that rule but we should probably consider whether the rule is good for the game. Let's have K join the rules committee to weigh in on this one."
Not how I read it... according to the article they are specifically creating a new type of violation that is directly tied to academic improprieties. That way they don't have to resort to "impermissible benefits," which is a weaker argument ("No no, ALL students had access to these fake classes!") and can instead zap a school specifically for academic shenanigans. In fact, they say it doesn't even have impact eligibility. A few quotes stood out to me.... like this one...
'On the one hand, universities still want control to determine if academic fraud occurred on their campus. On the other hand, universities want the NCAA to make a charge when there's obvious collusion on campus “but the institution, for whatever reason, came out with an absurd result,” Sulentic said.'
That seems to me to be a direct reference to the UNC mess, where they keep insisting it is no major problem because they are the ones investigating it. Seems that might be ending with this rule change.
Hopefully, we will see another article on the same issue. Maybe it will be more clear.
What I find ironic is the fact that we have the most educated people in the country, who are also given the responsibility to educate our young adult population, producing some of the dumbest and most confusing regulations I have ever seen.
Years ago, I was asked to read a major paper done by a committee of highly educated professionals. I had a difficult time understanding it and I told my wife that I felt almost dumb due to my lack of understanding. Later, I attended a seminar led by a graduate school professor who was asked to comment on the paper. He started by stating that it so horribly written that he struggled to understand it!
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
In 99.99999% of the cases of teams which the NCAA penalizes, "lack of institutional control" is an aggravating factor. When it's UNC it's a mitigating factor? The object of the penalty is to punish the school. Punishing the team and the coach is just a means to an end. If the school has been corrupt you still have to punish the element under your jurisdiction. (Oh, and give Penn State back their money if you're worried about jurisdiction.)
Not surprising to me. After all this is the same organization that not only came up with a laughably simplistic and inaccurate system for comparing teams (the RPI), but they then proceeded to rely on it more and more, and for purposes that it was never designed for.
They did this simply because the people in charge were too stupid to know any better.
I think the die is cast for UNC's current transgressions with the NOA charging LOIC and "impermissible benefits". NCAA is currently embroiled in a few lawsuits, one where they are codefendants with UNC, that puts them in the crux of defining academic fraud. The NCAA is desperately trying to extricate themselves from the lawsuits which is why there is no mention of fraud in UNC's NOA but instead the impermissible benefits. If the NCAA had gone after UNC regarding fraud in the NOA then they are in effect admitting that they are in the academic fraud business for lack of a better way of putting it. I think that is what the first 2 paragraphs of the article is trying to say, etc.
My guess is that NCAA's new rule is largely intended to establish that they are now "going to be" in the academic fraud biz, which would further strengthen their position of currently not in it and helping to getting out of the lawsuits.
Granted, it's a bunch of BS since the NCAA is basically in the academic fraud biz via the APR system, which UNC has totally gamed since the APR system was first enacted.
Now, if the new "transparent" UNC (LOL!) uncovers more academic fraud violations in their women's debate team, then the new rule would probably come in to play.
In laymen terms it means UNC is going to get a pass on this. It was a very hard article to understand. Must have been written by a lawyer.
If UNC skates on this, people will keep digging just out of hatred for UNC getting to cheat and get away with it. UNC needs to just punish its mens basketball team so people won't be so inclined to dig further
I have a feeling if that happened, UNC would lawyer up in a big way and claim some violation of their right to due process. Essentially, they'd argue that they had no notice that this type of cheating would get them in trouble. That kind of defense would be totally ridiculous, but at this point, I wouldn't put anything past the Carolina Way...
Hopefully, we will see another article on the same issue. Maybe it will be more clear.
What I find ironic is the fact that we have the most educated people in the country, who are also given the responsibility to educate our young adult population, producing some of the dumbest and most confusing regulations I have ever seen.
Years ago, I was asked to read a major paper done by a committee of highly educated professionals. I had a difficult time understanding it and I told my wife that I felt almost dumb due to my lack of understanding. Later, I attended a seminar led by a graduate school professor who was asked to comment on the paper. He started by stating that it so horribly written that he struggled to understand it!
Here is what I got out of that. By redefining or augmenting the definition of academic misconduct, it seems to me that they are leaving themselves an opening to severely tongue lash INC. In doing so, they also can justify a slap on the wrist in actual punishment because of the "new definition" wasn't retro-active". Not saying that is going to happen, but I can see the door opening for that sort of spineless response to the academic atrocities we've see at INC.
Last edited:
The death penalty was never on the table. The NCAA said years ago that it would never be used again. I don't have a link to that but I read it somewhere.
I agree that UNC does deserve the death penalty. I still believe very little will be done to UNC. Any ideal when decision will be made?
The beauty of the NCAA is they almost always win against member institutions. My conspiracy theory says that every UNC*** alumni who has worked for the NCAA steps up and starts scheduling interviews with the media to expose the NCAA's dirty lingerie.
Agree that the article is poorly written.
FWIW, the biggest thing that gives me pause about the whole thing is Solomon interview Jo(sephine) Potuto. For those who don't know Potuto has been a long-time lackey for the N.C.A.A. who most recently was hired by UNC as a consultant to help them with their whitewashing of the scandal.
It's not clear from the article what influence, if any, she has over the NCAA's decisions given that she's no longer the chairwoman of the NCAA infractions committee, but she may.
FWIW, I first ran across Potuto probably 15 years ago reading some articles she wrote about the NCAA and Kentucky in particular, which were very poorly researched and frankly unprofessional. I've considered her to be a hack ever since.
Don't trust the NCAA to do their job properly or fairly anymore, every school should get lawyers and sue them if nothing happens to UNCheat, especially Penn State
Latest posts
-
-
-
Matthew langhi 6ft5 small forward soph marshall co- Latest: CatFanInIlliniLand
-
